Guest guest Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 Namaste Nomadeva, > Two clarifications here. > One, > I did not say that Puranas not supportive of my theory> are bogus. Well, you did not use the word "bogus", but you did say "atleast one of them is wrong" and later "That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts are tAmasic. The stuff therein has to be ignored.". It is tantamount to calling puranas not supportive of your theory as bogus. > I was saying that those quotes cannot be> wished away as interpolations. Well, my friend, if a few quotes make you wish away a whole set of puranas ("tAmasic" puranas) as ignorables, why can't I wish away a few quotes as interpolations? Is it simpler to ignore (or, alternatively, interpet a bit loosely) a handful of verses or is it simpler to ignore a whole set of puranas written by great Vyasa? This habit of dismissing several Puranas based on a few verses in other Puranas is most troublesome. Who knows, those verses could have been added on during the Vaishnava-Shaiva wars that occurred as Kali took over. > > However since you take great pleasure in relegating> all gods other> > than Vishnu and Krishna to a secondary> > position and ask for original shlokas, I would like> you to give your meaning of the following shlokas in > > "Shrimadbhagavadgita" and what meaning should be> attributed to it. "Adhyaaya 3 shloka 14/15". Nomadeva left this without answering. The verse 3-15 establishes "sarvagatam brahma", i.e. Brahman is all -pervading. > > Also since you treat Vishnu, Krishna and rama as> different entities,> > will you explain the meaning of> > I don't know how you got this idea. I hold all these> to be the same. It appears that the mail hasn't been> read properly. Well, it wasn't you. But others attempted further grading of gods. For example, an esteemed colleague did some math that attempted to prove that the name of Krishna was 2 times (or was it 3) more powerful than the name of Rama. > > I would also like to understand why you , on one> hand profess Vishnu> > and Krishna to be supreme and try not> > to understand what the Lord says in Adhyaaya5 Shloka> 18, as it sums up the logic behind our argument that > > all Gods are Rupas of the same Paratman.> > 5.18: > vidyAvinayasampanne brAhmaNe gavi hastini |> shuni chaiva shvapAke cha paNDitAH samadarshinaH || > > Where does this say that all Gods are Rupas of> Paramatma? Well, look at the next verse (5-19). It says that every entity in the universe (let alone gods, but even you and me) are equal and different forms of the same all-pervading Brahman. Verse 5-21 further says that one who completely understands the Brahman present within oneself finds permanent and and unlimited happiness. Verse 5-26 further says that one who overcomes kama and krodha and understands self will receive moksha. For all these verses, I strongly recommend you to read the bhaashyam (commentary) by great Adi Sankara. In a previous verse (4-35), Krishna tells Arjuna that Arjuna too would find the whole universe and its infinite living beings within himself (i.e. within Arjuna), just like Krishna, if he had the complete knowledge of self (atman). Overall, a thorough reading of Gita would blur the distinction between Advaita siddhanta (non-duality) and Dwaita siddhantam (duality). As for me, I consider both the siddhantas to be correct in their own way. As I said in another mail, the supreme Brahman is formless as far as this four-dimensional world is concerned and yet has a splendid form which exists in an infinite dimensional space that can be perceived only by great sages who realized their selves. The key to that infinite dimensional space is within us, within our atman, because that spendid infinite-dimensional universe has a reflection within our atma. We will experience it only when we realize our self completely. In that sense, both Advaita and Dwaita are right in their own way. Though they seem to contradict each other, both are correct. In any case, those who want more complete understanding should try to read great Adi Sankara's splendid commentary on Krishna's supreme teaching BhagavadGita. I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada (I am not necessarily talking about you Nomadeva) tend to dismiss Adi Sankara saying that he served a limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and should hence be ignored. If an incarnation of Shiva can be dismissed as having served a limited purpose, isn't it possible that Srila Prabhupada too had a "limited purpose" to fulfill (creating blind faith in the Almighty among the people of this age) and wrote his translations accordingly? In my humble view, Adi Sankara is the most brilliant Vedic scholar, thinker, philosopher and commentator to descend on earth since the beginning of Kali yuga. Nobody else matches his brilliance. > entities. To assume that the Lord is expecting the> paNDita to consider every entity listed above to be of> equal inherent worth is wrong; in fact, no> commentator, including Shankaracharya, has said that. Nope. As the quote you yourself gave below shows, Sankaracharya said that learned persons (panditah) view the same (ekam) and equal (samam) Brahman (brahma) that is untouched (asprishtam) by the sattwika, rajasika and tamasika samskaras present in various entities. So, despite the different external samskaras in various entities, the inherent worth (or the Brahman) that is inherently present in various entities is the same and equal and is untouched by the external samskaras. You have quoted Sankaracharya all right, but I am afraid you haven't read him carefully. > Here's what he says: > uttamasaMskAravati brAhmaNe sAttvike, madhyamAyAM ca> rAjasyAM gavi, saMskArahInAyAm atyantameva> kevalatAmase hastyAdau ca, sattvAdiguNaiH tajjaishca> saMskAraiH tathA rAjasaiH tathA tAmasaishca saMskAraiH> atyantameva aspR^iShTaM samam ekam avikriyaM tat> brahma draShTuM shIlaM yeShAM te paNDitAH> samadarshinaH | > Now, that has got nothing to do with 'All Gods are> rupas of same Paramatman'. Had they been so, they If every living being (a Brahmana, a cow, a dog and an elephant) is a different form of the same Paramatman and should be considered equal by the learned, why not various deities who are also different forms of the same Paramatman? > wouldn't have flaws. Well, because somebody is a form of Paramatman, he/she doesn't need to be flawless. Sankaracharya clearly mentioned that the Paramatman that is inherently present in each entity is the same and untouched by external samkaras, but the external samkarakas like sattwa, rajas and tamas can be different in different entities (including gods, human beings and animals). > Regards,> Nomadeva> > > Regards,> > Chandrashekhar. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Dear Narasimhaji, I fully support your views expressed in replies to both Nomadeva and Robert. As I have mentioned many times I am not an expert of either sanskrit or rituals in religion. However I know my religion well. Normally I do not enter into any discussions regarding religion as it is a matter of everybody's belief. However when theories at variance with the Hindu religion started appearing as the ultimate truth , I could not resist. It was also shocking to find that those swearing by Vishnu and Krishna as personality without reference to the Parmatman within them, had not even read the Shrimadbhagavdgita in its entirety. In Bhagvad Gita Adhyaya 10 Shloka 3 the Lord tells about his true rupa.Again in shloka 12 the Lord tells refers to Vishnu to be Aaditya and says that I am Vishnu amongst the Aadityas. In Shloka 23 He states that he is Shankara amongst Rudras. In SDhloka31 He says that I am Rama amongst Armsbearers, and in Shloka 37 He says that I am Vasudeva(Krishna) amongst the Vrishni Tribe.He further says that I am Dananjaya(Arjuna) amongst Pandavas.He also goes on to describes his Animal Rupas and so on. Now even somebody not well versed in scriptures can tell by this that the Parmatman himself is speaking to Arjuna and not Krishna or Vishnu, which are but forms of the Lord. These people claiming to be well versed in parampara and following it are obviously have not taken pains the Lord's teachings, which they claim to revere. Their inability to understand the reference to "Vidyavinaysampanne..." clearly indicates that they have probably not studied this most divine of the scriptures in its entirety. Otherwise they would have understand its connection with Shloka 3 and 20 in Adhyaya 10 where the Lord repeats the same dictum for the benefit of Arjuna. These worthies even appear to realise the importance of Shankaracharya to Hindu Religion and probably might know how Shankaracharyas are chosen in even this age. Regards, Chandrashekhar. - Narasimha P.V.R. Rao vedic astrology Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:44 AM [vedic astrology] Re: To Chandrasekhar-jI (to Nomadeva) Namaste Nomadeva, > Two clarifications here. > One, > I did not say that Puranas not supportive of my theory> are bogus. Well, you did not use the word "bogus", but you did say "atleast one of them is wrong" and later "That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts are tAmasic. The stuff therein has to be ignored.". It is tantamount to calling puranas not supportive of your theory as bogus. > I was saying that those quotes cannot be> wished away as interpolations. Well, my friend, if a few quotes make you wish away a whole set of puranas ("tAmasic" puranas) as ignorables, why can't I wish away a few quotes as interpolations? Is it simpler to ignore (or, alternatively, interpet a bit loosely) a handful of verses or is it simpler to ignore a whole set of puranas written by great Vyasa? This habit of dismissing several Puranas based on a few verses in other Puranas is most troublesome. Who knows, those verses could have been added on during the Vaishnava-Shaiva wars that occurred as Kali took over. > > However since you take great pleasure in relegating> all gods other> > than Vishnu and Krishna to a secondary> > position and ask for original shlokas, I would like> you to give your meaning of the following shlokas in > > "Shrimadbhagavadgita" and what meaning should be> attributed to it. "Adhyaaya 3 shloka 14/15". Nomadeva left this without answering. The verse 3-15 establishes "sarvagatam brahma", i.e. Brahman is all -pervading. > > Also since you treat Vishnu, Krishna and rama as> different entities,> > will you explain the meaning of> > I don't know how you got this idea. I hold all these> to be the same. It appears that the mail hasn't been> read properly. Well, it wasn't you. But others attempted further grading of gods. For example, an esteemed colleague did some math that attempted to prove that the name of Krishna was 2 times (or was it 3) more powerful than the name of Rama. > > I would also like to understand why you , on one> hand profess Vishnu> > and Krishna to be supreme and try not> > to understand what the Lord says in Adhyaaya5 Shloka> 18, as it sums up the logic behind our argument that > > all Gods are Rupas of the same Paratman.> > 5.18: > vidyAvinayasampanne brAhmaNe gavi hastini |> shuni chaiva shvapAke cha paNDitAH samadarshinaH || > > Where does this say that all Gods are Rupas of> Paramatma? Well, look at the next verse (5-19). It says that every entity in the universe (let alone gods, but even you and me) are equal and different forms of the same all-pervading Brahman. Verse 5-21 further says that one who completely understands the Brahman present within oneself finds permanent and and unlimited happiness. Verse 5-26 further says that one who overcomes kama and krodha and understands self will receive moksha. For all these verses, I strongly recommend you to read the bhaashyam (commentary) by great Adi Sankara. In a previous verse (4-35), Krishna tells Arjuna that Arjuna too would find the whole universe and its infinite living beings within himself (i.e. within Arjuna), just like Krishna, if he had the complete knowledge of self (atman). Overall, a thorough reading of Gita would blur the distinction between Advaita siddhanta (non-duality) and Dwaita siddhantam (duality). As for me, I consider both the siddhantas to be correct in their own way. As I said in another mail, the supreme Brahman is formless as far as this four-dimensional world is concerned and yet has a splendid form which exists in an infinite dimensional space that can be perceived only by great sages who realized their selves. The key to that infinite dimensional space is within us, within our atman, because that spendid infinite-dimensional universe has a reflection within our atma. We will experience it only when we realize our self completely. In that sense, both Advaita and Dwaita are right in their own way. Though they seem to contradict each other, both are correct. In any case, those who want more complete understanding should try to read great Adi Sankara's splendid commentary on Krishna's supreme teaching BhagavadGita. I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada (I am not necessarily talking about you Nomadeva) tend to dismiss Adi Sankara saying that he served a limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and should hence be ignored. If an incarnation of Shiva can be dismissed as having served a limited purpose, isn't it possible that Srila Prabhupada too had a "limited purpose" to fulfill (creating blind faith in the Almighty among the people of this age) and wrote his translations accordingly? In my humble view, Adi Sankara is the most brilliant Vedic scholar, thinker, philosopher and commentator to descend on earth since the beginning of Kali yuga. Nobody else matches his brilliance. > entities. To assume that the Lord is expecting the> paNDita to consider every entity listed above to be of> equal inherent worth is wrong; in fact, no> commentator, including Shankaracharya, has said that. Nope. As the quote you yourself gave below shows, Sankaracharya said that learned persons (panditah) view the same (ekam) and equal (samam) Brahman (brahma) that is untouched (asprishtam) by the sattwika, rajasika and tamasika samskaras present in various entities. So, despite the different external samskaras in various entities, the inherent worth (or the Brahman) that is inherently present in various entities is the same and equal and is untouched by the external samskaras. You have quoted Sankaracharya all right, but I am afraid you haven't read him carefully. > Here's what he says: > uttamasaMskAravati brAhmaNe sAttvike, madhyamAyAM ca> rAjasyAM gavi, saMskArahInAyAm atyantameva> kevalatAmase hastyAdau ca, sattvAdiguNaiH tajjaishca> saMskAraiH tathA rAjasaiH tathA tAmasaishca saMskAraiH> atyantameva aspR^iShTaM samam ekam avikriyaM tat> brahma draShTuM shIlaM yeShAM te paNDitAH> samadarshinaH | > Now, that has got nothing to do with 'All Gods are> rupas of same Paramatman'. Had they been so, they If every living being (a Brahmana, a cow, a dog and an elephant) is a different form of the same Paramatman and should be considered equal by the learned, why not various deities who are also different forms of the same Paramatman? > wouldn't have flaws. Well, because somebody is a form of Paramatman, he/she doesn't need to be flawless. Sankaracharya clearly mentioned that the Paramatman that is inherently present in each entity is the same and untouched by external samkaras, but the external samkarakas like sattwa, rajas and tamas can be different in different entities (including gods, human beings and animals). > Regards,> Nomadeva> > > Regards,> > Chandrashekhar. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... 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.