Spirit and Matter

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

>

> krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla> wrote:

 

> The explanation of transforming spirit into matter and vice-versa

> was not mine. My point all along was that the archa-vigraha is not

> matter.

>

> >>>Your second statement implies that you consider the first

statement to be true. The arca-vigraha is clearly made of material

objects such as stone,wood etc., - if you say it is pure spirit and

there is no tinge of matter, it means you accept that matter

completely transforms into spirit.

 

Sumeet: Aravind, Krishna prabhu correctly represents Srila

Prabhupada. Let me produce evidence.

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/12/9/en

 

"By the mercy of the arca-vigraha, the form of the Lord in material

elements, the devotees who are in the material world can easily

approach the Lord, although He is not conceivable by the material

senses. The ***arca-vigraha*** is therefore ***an all-spiritual

form*** of the Lord to be perceived by the material devotees; such an

arca-vigraha of the Lord is never to be considered material."

 

See according to SP the arca vigraha of Lord is an all spiritual

form. The words "all spiritual" CLEARLY means, in opinion of SP

matter COMPLETELY transforms into spirit because without complete

transformation it cannot be all spiritual.

 

Gerald this contradicts your own position:

 

"I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the substance of the

murti itself is the Lord, but that the Lord acts directly through the

medium."

 

Aravind then in the same purport SP further says for Lord there is no

difference between spirit and matter. This difference is for people

in conditioned existence only.

 

"There is no difference between matter and spirit for the Lord,

although there is a gulf of difference between the two in the case of

the conditioned living being. For the Lord there is nothing but

spiritual existence, and similarly there is nothing except spiritual

existence for the pure devotee of the Lord in his intimate relation

with the Lord."

 

Therefore when SP says spirit can be converted into matter or vice

versa he cannot be explained in a way Bhanu maharaj has done. SP is

very clear it is "all spiritual." No one can have second

interpretation of this term unless one wants to force his own ideas

into these which honestly by all means will be far far stretching

excercise totally corrupting original meaning of the terms.

 

Also see here:

 

http://www.acbspn.com/books/iso/iso08.htm

 

"The Lord's worshipable form (arca-vigraha), which is installed in

temples by authorized acharyas who have realized the Lord in terms of

Mantra Seven, is also nondifferent from the original form of the

Lord. The Lord's original form is that of Sri Krishna, and Sri

Krishna expands Himself into an unlimited number of forms like

Baladeva, Rama, Nrsimha, Varaha, etc. All of these forms are one and

the same Personality of Godhead.

 

Similarly, the arca-vigraha which is worshiped in temples is also an

expanded form of the Lord. By worshiping the arca-vigraha, one can at

once approach the Lord, who accepts the service of a devotee by His

omnipotent energy. The arca-vigraha of the Lord descends upon the

request of the acharyas, the holy teachers, and works exactly in the

original way of the Lord by virtue of the Lord's omnipotent energy.

Foolish people who have no knowledge of Sri Isopanisad or of any of

the other sruti mantras consider the arca-vigraha, which is worshiped

by pure devotees, to be made of material elements. This form may be

seen as material by the imperfect eyes of foolish people or kanistha-

adhikaris, but such people do not know that the Lord, being

omnipotent and omniscient, ***can transform matter into spirit and

spirit into matter as He desires***. "

 

If Bhanu maharaj is giving his personal opinion then its fine, but if

he wants to represent SP i don't think he is doing that

satisfactorily. SP is more than clear on this transformation

principle. Comments and correction welcome.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Gerald this contradicts your own position:

>

> "I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the substance of

the

> murti itself is the Lord, but that the Lord acts directly through

the

> medium."

 

 

Gerald actually i meant to include the full quote from you.

 

"I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the substance of the

murti itself is the Lord, but that the Lord acts directly through the

medium. For the practical purposes of sadhana, the arca (the

Lord-jada complex) is the Lord Himself. (i.e. Offenses to the the

properly installed murti cut right through the thin veil of matter

and are offenses to the Lord Himself.) .."

 

Certainly what you say in the later half of the quote is not

vindicated by SP.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> If Bhanu maharaj is giving his personal opinion then its fine, but

if

> he wants to represent SP i don't think he is doing that

> satisfactorily. SP is more than clear on this transformation

> principle. Comments and correction welcome.

>

 

Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with H.H. Bhanu

Mahaaraaja, whose service and scholarship within ISKCON and for the

Gaudiiya community is beyond reproach. I just did not endorse the

transformation idea because this was the first I had heard of it - it

also just did not agree with me somehow, as I can imagine certain

problems arising from such an explanation.

 

However, I may very well be wrong and he correct. Certainly, the idea

bears some investigating.

 

Realize also that even within the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, there may be

more than one way of looking at the same issue, and different

explanations may arise from different aachaaryas. Certainly we have

seen this in the past. We should keep this in mind before getting

into an undue hair-splitting analysis and inadvertently pitt one guru

against another.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

I agree with KS pr.s comment on Bhanu Maharaj. Sumeet, it is very unfair to

conclude on seeing 4 lines of Bhanu maharaj's opinion on the subject who/what he

represents. Maharaj is known for his terrific scholarship backed by his service

and surrender to SP and his movement. I don't think we have the credentials to

comment on him. I request you to be more careful to avoid being offensive.

Sorry, if I sound harsh.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

 

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> If Bhanu maharaj is giving his personal opinion then its fine, but

if

> he wants to represent SP i don't think he is doing that

> satisfactorily. SP is more than clear on this transformation

> principle. Comments and correction welcome.

>

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

 

> Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with H.H. Bhanu

> Mahaaraaja, whose service and scholarship within ISKCON and for

the

> Gaudiiya community is beyond reproach.

 

Well thanks for your clarification. Even i don't doubt his

scholarship. All that i said was i don't think his explanation of

Srila Prabhupada's text satisfactory. And the reason was some

purports from SP where he is very very clear. The moment they are

properly explained, i will be satisfied.

 

> I just did not endorse the

> transformation idea because this was the first I had heard of it -

it

> also just did not agree with me somehow, as I can imagine certain

> problems arising from such an explanation.

 

> However, I may very well be wrong and he correct. Certainly, the

idea

> bears some investigating.

 

Aravind since you are already in touch with Bhannu Maharaj over the

issue, please ask him what does he thinks about that purport from

Srila Prabhupada. Specifically ask him how can arca vigraha be all

spiritual without having matter completely transformed into spirit.

 

The reason is very clear you cannot use the term "All spirit" for

something which has even slightest trace of matter in it.

 

Between I personally don't approve of this transformation theory.

Acarya Baladeva has specifically said that one substance cannot be

converted into another in his Vedaanta Sutra bhasya explaining

certain chandogya texts which seems to indicate that soul becomes

ether etc.... while its descent from higher realms to earth.

 

 

> Realize also that even within the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, there may

be

> more than one way of looking at the same issue, and different

> explanations may arise from different aachaaryas.

 

Well that is always a possibility within any sampradya.

 

> Certainly we have

> seen this in the past. We should keep this in mind before getting

> into an undue hair-splitting analysis and inadvertently pitt one

guru

> against another.

 

However, it is also visible from history that irreconcilable

difference arise between opinions of two great acaryas and scholars

of the same sampradya on the "same" issue - Vedanta Desikar and

Pillai lokacarya.

 

Although these differences doesn't mean that one is a devotee and

other is not but they may eventually cause break up of the school

into parts. These differences between them are well noted in Sri

Vaishnava sampradya and are reason for telenkai and vadalakai

schools of thought.

 

The difference between Jiva Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana is

noted by many scholars like Dr. OBL Kapoor[Phil. of SCM], Dasgupta

[in his book Hist of Ind Phil.] and even Dr. BNK Sharma [i am not

quite sure about him though]

 

So the point is if the two ways/approaches are reconcilable

without actually comprising the integrity of the original words of

different seers involved in the contradiction or not. Sometimes

there is contradiction between words of great seers and it simply

has to be acknowledged as such and left at that. Reconcilation

attempts are not always successful.

 

You personally are aware of difference between Madhva and Gaudiyas

on krishnas tu bhagavan svayam verse. Ask many devotees including

scholars like Swami BVT, they will say that its just Madhvas love

for Narayana which causes them to side step Originality of Krishna's

form but that hardly reconciles Madhva's bhasya on bhagavata 1.3.28

with gaudiya interpretation. Madhva is very frank in his

interpretation of the verse.

 

Between by this weekend i should have the book from SMS Chari which

contains complete sanskrit as well as his translation of Sattavata

Samhita verses which clearly explains the situation regarding

Krishna and arca murti.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

>

> achintya, "krishna_susarla"

> <krishna_susarla> wrote:

>

> > Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with H.H.

Bhanu

> > Mahaaraaja, whose service and scholarship within ISKCON and for

> the

> > Gaudiiya community is beyond reproach.

>

> Well thanks for your clarification. Even i don't doubt his

> scholarship. All that i said was i don't think his explanation of

> Srila Prabhupada's text satisfactory.

 

In the above line I meant Srila Prabhupada's position and not text.

sorry for the typo.

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

All I can say is that if the participants of these recent discussions

are able come to a definite conclusion then I will be very much amazed,

because the subjects seem to be the very definition of "achintya."

Every time I want to make some point or take some position based on what

I thought I clearly understood, I look for scriptural support and

instead find something refuting that same point or invalidating my

position. I think perhaps I should be satisfied trying to offer the

Lord some menial service and hope that I don't offend anyone, because it

is becoming apparent to me that there are some things far beyond my

present ability to know or understand. Please pray for Krishna's mercy

on me.

 

Hare Krishna

 

Your useless but aspiring servant,

Pandu das

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Pandu das" <pandu.bms@p...> wrote:

 

> All I can say is that if the participants of these recent

discussions

> are able come to a definite conclusion then I will be very much

amazed,

> because the subjects seem to be the very definition of "achintya."

 

We don't need to invoke achintyatva to reconcile every point of

conflict. While relationships between the Lord and His dependent

entities often require some degree of Achintyatva to fully explain,

the same is not true for all knowledge of the Lord in general. Some

things are clearly true and others are clearly false. And some people

just do not want to be convinced.

 

The notion that the Lord has a material body to show to unqualified

persons is false. We have already quoted Shriimad Bhaagavatam on this

many times. The final clincher was the verse stating that all persons

at the Battlefield of Kurukshetra got liberation by seeing the Lord.

Since it is a foregone conclusion that all combatants were not pure

devotees, and that one cannot get liberation by seeing something

material, it is only logical to conclude that the unqualified persons

saw the Lord's spiritual form.

 

Again, this seems so simple and obvious that one cannot help but be

discouraged when others dismiss the evidence and want to continue

arguing the point. When the evidence is clear, the discussion needs

to end. But since this is not happening, I do not feel compelled to

search for any more evidence, as the simple and straightforward

understandings I attribute to the verses are simply dismissed

as "products to suit my theories" (whatever that means).

 

Thus, everyone should simply feel free to believe whatever they want,

attribute it to whomever they want, and rationalize anything they

want by whatever jugglery of words they like. As I mentioned before,

I only had two more pieces of evidence to bring up (which I had

alluded to in past postings), and having done so, I now have nothing

further to say.

 

regards,

 

K

 

 

> Every time I want to make some point or take some position based on

what

> I thought I clearly understood, I look for scriptural support and

> instead find something refuting that same point or invalidating my

> position.

 

This just goes to show that learning the science of Krishna-

consciousness requires that one never be too complacent in what he

thinks he understands. One should always be prepared to challenge

one's views by further study of shaastra, and continue to refine his

understanding until it is cent percent consistent with the shaastras

as revealed by our aachaaryas.

[Guest guest]

>

> krishna_susarla [krishna_susarla]

> Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:40 PM

> achintya

> Re: Spirit and Matter

>

 

 

Krishna Susarla prabhu,

 

I have been faithfully reading the e-mails on this list for about

four years, and I cannot remember any time when I have found any fault

with your explanations of scriptural topics. I was simply trying to say

that while evaluating the different arguments made by everyone, I found

myself becoming more confused. If I did not express myself properly in

my recent message, then that is my fault and I apologize for further

upsetting you.

 

I was specifically having trouble with the conceptions of any

material aspect of the installed Deity, of distinctly separate

categories Krishna's energies that can be definitely labeled spirit or

matter rather than labels according to how the energies are applied

(favorably or unfavorably in Krishna's service). I believe you were

correctly arguing against these conceptions. I do not want to think of

anything as material in relation to Krishna. How could it be?

 

However, because I am not at all advanced in devotional service,

I feel somewhat of a need to evaluate the different positions; doing so

confused me when I thought I was clear in my understanding before. When

I considered the idea that there could be some material component to

Krishna's Deity form, I felt like whatever spiritual intelligence I had

just disappeared.

 

Forgive me for not having the most lucid intelligence. I am a

beginner at devotional life, and it is a constant struggle for me to

attempt to live a proper spiritual life even after Krishna so mercifully

picked me up nine years ago from being immersed in mayavadi philosophy.

It was not my intention to upset you at all. Somehow my pride must have

puffed up to much so that I thought I could contribute something to

this discussion, but when I realized that I was bewildered I expressed

that instead. I asked for Krishna's mercy, and apparently He has sent

it in the form of chastisement by His devotee, which I undoubtedly

deserve. However with what little intelligence I have I can understand

that if I commit any offense in my association with Krishna's devotees

then it is very bad for me, so I will do my best to stay quiet. Or

rather to just chant Hare Krishna.

 

Pandu das