Guest guest Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 Dear devotees, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Valmiki chanted "maramaramara"; so he happened to chant 'Rama'. But why did he become a devotee of Lord Ramacandra? Srila Prabhupada states that "Rama" is also the name of Lord Balarama. So why didn't Valmiki become a devotee of Lord Balarama? -- Your servant, Dennis. dennis_s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Dandavats. Jaya Prabhupada! > Valmiki chanted "maramaramara"; so he happened to chant 'Rama'. But why > did he become a devotee of Lord Ramacandra? Srila Prabhupada states > that "Rama" is also the name of Lord Balarama. There's also Parasurama, "axe Rama." But they're all nondofferent. According to Cc., Adilila, 5.132: "In whatever form one knows the Lord, one speaks of Him in that way. In this there is no falsity, since everything is possible in Krsna." PURPORT "In this connection we may mention an incident that took place between two of our sannyasis while we were preaching the Hare Krsna maha-mantra in Hyderabad. One of them stated that Hare Rama refers to Sri Balarama, and the other protested that Hare Rama means Lord Rama. Ultimately the controversy came to me, and I gave the decision that if someone says that Rama in Hare Rama is Lord Ramacandra and someone else says that the Rama in Hare Rama is Sri Balarama, both are correct because there is no difference between Sri Balarama and Lord Rama. Here in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta we find that Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami has stated the same conclusion: yei yei rupe jane, sei taha kahe sakala sambhave krsne, kichu mithya nahe If someone calls Lord Ramacandra by the vibration Hare Rama, or if he understands Ramacandra, he is quite right. Similarly, if one says that Hare Rama means Sri Balarama, he is also right. Those who are aware of the visnu-tattva do not fight over all these details." Evidently he was more attracted to Rama (cf. Bhagavata 3.9.11). MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't Parashuraama a shaktyaavesha avataara? If yes, and that therefore he is an empowered jiva, where is the question of him being nondifferent from Raama, the way Balaraama is nondifferent from Raama? Yours, - K M. Tandy [mpt] > Valmiki chanted "maramaramara"; so he happened to chant 'Rama'. But why > did he become a devotee of Lord Ramacandra? Srila Prabhupada states > that "Rama" is also the name of Lord Balarama. There's also Parasurama, "axe Rama." But they're all nondofferent. ------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2002 Report Share Posted April 25, 2002 > Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't Parashuraama a shaktyaavesha > avataara? If yes, and that therefore he is an empowered jiva, where is > the question of him being nondifferent from Raama, the way Balaraama is > nondifferent from Raama? Yes, he is a saktyavesa-avatara. He is also a lila-avatara. An avatara of Vishnu is an avatara of Vishnu. This is a general identity, and an acintya-bhedabheda tattva. Sometimes it's dangerous to make too much of the distinctions here, because doing so nourishes a conditioned souls' natural tendency to neglect the Lord in (or as) His innumerable nondual manifestations--His immanent transcendence, so to speak. People also do this to their gurus. However, we have to watch out for mayavada too. Broadly speaking, karma and jnana are the two poles of maya between which we all oscillate. Even more broadly, these two may represent duality and nonduality respectively. Whether in yogamaya or mahamaya, one of them (i.e., karma or jnana) will always dominate. Context determines which one must be emphasized--or not--at any given time. Considering the Srimad-Bhagavatam (cf., 1.3), and the acaryas' teachings, it seems that Srila Prabhupada generally identified all the avataras as the Lord. This is probably because we conditioned souls need to appreciate the tattva that equates the Lord's multiforms before we can appreciate the rasas that distinguish Them. Krsna regularly uses the word "tattvatah" in this sense (i.e., sambandha-jnana) throughout the Gita. MDd 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.