RE: Consolidated reply to Nomadeva-Sadashiva darshan

[Guest guest]

Om

Gurave Namah

 

Dear

Narasimha, Nomadeva,

 

Sorry

for intruding in your conversation, but just wanted to share a couple of

thoughts, which might add more food for your dialogue. Firstly, I read

Nomadeva’s statement that Vivekananda’s words were an empty boast and that

people like him did not understand the dialectic of the dvaita. A person must

be very tall indeed to make such comments about the great monk. As Sanjayji

warned in an earlier mail, Krishna Chaturdashi to Shukla Pratipad, is an

unfavourable time to discuss spiritual topics with relation to gurus.

 

Secondly,

I share with Narasimha and many others that advaita and dvaita are not

incompatible with each other. More than anyone, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had

pointed this out beautifully, and that is why he did not receive a warm welcome

from Madhavacharya’s ashram when he visited the south. They accused him of

being a mayavadi. Brahman is nirguna and when he acquires attributes, he

becomes saguna. There is no contradiction in that. Like the Moon, who is both

amavasya and pournamasya. (In

fact, the Brahman is at once nirguna and saguna. It is both simultaneously at

all times, i.e. gunatita and gunamaya, and none other than the Devi can

symbolize this to perfection, specially in the iconography of Goddess Kali,

where Sadashiva/Mahakal at Her feet depicts the nirguna (and hence inert and

deathly), and connected to the corpse of Shiva, Her dancing body, depicts the

saguna aspect. So, Mahakal is gunatita and from Him springs the gunas, the gunamayi

Mahakali. And as they are connected, they are both nirguna and saguna

interchangeably. At another level, the Devi as Goddess Kali is nirguna and

hence is depicted by amavasya and as Goddess Tripura is saguna and is depicted

by pournamasya, resplendent and fully blossomed like the 16 kalas of the Moon. I

did not wish to drag Her here, or divert the conversation but it was amavasya

yesterday

mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:

Wingdings">J

Garamond">).

 

Thirdly,

what I really wanted to share with you is a beautiful chapter from the Vamana

Purana. Nomadeva would have problems with the translation I am sure, but it is not

possible to write out the entire Sanskrit verses here, nor deny the pleasures of

the Harihara abheda rupa to other list members.

yes"> This chapter speaks of the rupa of Sadashiva. A parallel

situation was created to that what is happening in the list, but in the reverse

manner.

 

Shiva’s

huge armies headed by Nandi were preparing for battle. They included large

battalions of the Rudras, Skandas, Shakhs, Vishakhs, Matrikas, Shaivas,

Mahapashupats among others. The Mahapashupats were the worshippers of Harihara.

Shiva met each of them but singled out the leaders of the Mahapashupats and

embraced them warmly. The army

chiefs were taken aback at this gesture of their great Lord, and Nandi thus

approached Shiva and requested him to speak about gyana and viveka to the

assembled army. Shiva then began a long discourse, which ended in his revealing

the Sadashiva rupa.

 

Shiva

said, when ahamkara and moha enshrouds the mind, gyana disappears and the

buddhi or intelligence gets distorted. In this agyana state, people cannot see

the abheda rupa of Shiva and Vishnu. They think that the two are separate. “That

God who is Vishnu, he is me; and that who is me, is him. There is no distinction

between us, it is the same idol/figure, which is divided.”

 

Yohhat

sa bhagavan vishnuryashchasau sohhamavyayah

Nababhyam

bai visheshohsti eka murtirdvidha sthita

 

“In

the manner my devotees realize me, in the same manner they realize Vishnu. But

because your (the armies) intelligence/buddhi is clouded, you are abusing Hari,

and consequently your gyana is destroyed. Hence I did not embrace you.” The Ganas

wondered how Shiva, who is calm and clear like the crystal, pure and white with

the light of knowledge, could unite with Hari, who was dark like the star of the

eye. Shiva smiled and told his followers that he would reveal unto them his

deepest secret, the tatva, which gives him the greatest pleasure, even above

being bathed with milk and ghee. He said, that if they carefully cut his body

in half, they would see Sanatana Vishnu residing within. The one who worships Shiva

and the one who worships Vishnu, are equal.

 

Yatnat

krakachamadaya chhindadhvam mama vigraham

Tathapi

drishyate vishnurmama dehah santanah

Ekaharo

bhaved yastu vishnubhaktashcha yo bhaved

Ubhau

tau sadrishau loke natra karya vicharana.

 

Vishnu

is the omnipresent Jagannatha, the God of all, whom none can equal. He is multihued

and can assume any colour whether white, yellow or red. He is the Lord of the

Universe, bearing within him the gunas like satva, rajas and tamas and there is

no greater truth in the world than him. He is the worshipped one, and it is he

who is Sadashiva.

 

Yannindadhvam

jagannatham pushkarakshancha manmatham

Sadaiva

bhagavan sarvah sarvavyapi ganeshvarah

Na

tasya sadrisho loke vidyate sacharachare

Shvetamurti

sah bhagavan pito rakto jagatpatih

Tasmat

parataram loke nanyat satyam hi vidyate

Satvikam

rajasanchaiva tamasam mishrakam tatha

Sa

eva dhatte bhagavan sarvapujya sadashivah

Shankarasya

vachah srutva shailadyah pramathottama

 

Then,

upon the request of his followers, Sureshvara Shiva displayed his Sadashiva

rupa. The omnipresent, unseeable, Sadashiva who envelopes the universe with his

thousand arms and thousand feet, armed with his danda, made himself visible to

the huge battalion of soldiers. They saw Him, whose body was adorned with

thousands of roudra and vaishnava marks and who appeared before them as half

Vishnu and half Hara, in one moment riding Garuda and in the next astride the

Bull.

 

font-weight:bold">Roudraishcha vaishnavaishchaiva dhritam chihnnai sahasrashah

font-weight:bold">Ardhena vaishnavavapurdhena haravigrahah

font-weight:bold">

Shankara

adopted single forms and multi forms, slipping easily from rupa to rupa, colour

to colour; and in this manner he was sometimes milky, sometimes blood red, for

a second yellow, or blue or mixed or colourless, for a moment a Mahapashupat,

then Rudra, then Indra, then Shambhu, then Prabhakara, the Sun, and then in an instant

he was Shankara, Vishnu and Brahma. The Ganas watched mesmerized and saw

Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and the Sun to be inseparable. They then realized the Sanatana

God to be undivided and at that very moment, their sins were absolved. Upon

their realization of the unity of the divine, Shiva was pleased that their

gyana was restored and granted them a boon. They asked their sins to be washed

away, which had accumulated due to perceiving them (Vishnu and Shiva) as

inseparable. Shiva granted them their boon and embraced them.

 

Best

regards,

 

Sarbani

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

yes">

 

Best

regards,

Garamond;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

 

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

Sarbani

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

Garamond">

10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black">

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

[pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]

Friday, May 02, 2003 8:22 AM

To:

vedic astrology

[vedic astrology]

Consolidated reply to Nomadeva

 

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Dear Nomadeva,

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> As many mails have indicated so far,

I too feel that

> this topic is off the list objective. If you think so

> too, we can take it offline.

 

windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">As I too am involved in the thread and

enjoying the discussion with you in particular, I am not in a

position to make a fair decision. So I will leave the decision of putting a

stop to this thread to Pt. Sanjay Rath, who is the other administrator of this

list. When he thinks further discussion will add no value to the said and unsaid

objectives of this list, I request him to tell us so that we can stop. Because

he said today "The discussion between Nomadeva & Narasimha was very

enlightening for this list, and I request both of them to continue", I

think we have his blessings for continuation so far.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Before I proceed, I have an apology to

make. Sanjay ji wrote:

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> Narasimha's qualitative definition

of mimamsa as "dry" or "wet" did not

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> hold ground with readers like me and

of course he has explained in

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> superb detail later..

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I agree that my "dry mimamsa"

comment that came the day before the detailed reply was uncalled for and in

poor taste. Nomadeva, I apologize for that comment.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Now let us jump into the discussion. I

will try to make it as short as possible.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

On Puranas

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> 1. I am interested in knowing how

you can interpret

> those verses 'loosely'.

 

windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Sure. Let me demonstrate it with the

verse you quoted from Varaha purana. Please note that this "loose

interpretation" is actually quite tenable and justifiable. It removes the

guilt your interpretation puts on Shaiva puranas!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Please note that the interpretation is

not necessarily my formal view. But certainly this is a possible and tenable

translation. My whole idea is that you cannot suggest that we should

"ignore" the stuff in Shiva purana, Linga purana etc just because of

a handful of verses in other puranas.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> eSha mohaM sR^ijAmyAshu yo janAn.h

mohayiShyati | tvaM

> cha rudra mahAbAho mohashAstrANi kAraya ||

> atatthyAni vitatthyAni darshayasva mahAbhuja |

> prakAshaM kuru chA.atmAnamaprakAshaM cha mAM kuru ||

 

windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">This is my anvaya krama: "Ashu eSha

mohaM sR^ijAmi yo janAn mohayiShyati. rudra, mahAbAho, tvaM cha mohashAstrANi

atathyAni kAraya. mahAbhuja, vitathyAni darshayasva. atmAnam cha prakAshaM

kuru. mAM cha aprakAshaM kuru."

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I am giving the word-by-word meaning

in the English sentence order (i.e. not in the above anvaya order) below:

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">sR^ijAmi = I create

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">eSha = this

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mohaM = delusion

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Ashu = spontaneously

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">yo = which

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mohayiShyati = will delude

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">janAn.h = people

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">tvaM cha = and you

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">rudra = O Rudra!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mahAbAho = O strong one!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">kAraya = render

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">atathyAni = something not quite correct

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mohashAstrANi = this knowledge causing

delusion

windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mhAbhuja = O mighty one!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">darshayasva = establish/show

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">vitathyAni = special and real truths

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">cha = and

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">kuru = do/make

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">AtmAnam = yourself

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">prakAshaM = seen

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">cha = and

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">kuru = do/make

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">mAM = me

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">aprakAshaM = hidden

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

Translation:

color:black"> I spontaneously create this delusion, which deludes people [and

gives them certain ideas, as expounded further in Vaishnava puranas]. O

powerful Rudra, you establish this knowledge of delusion [which does not allow

the supreme understanding of Brahman] as something that is not quite correct.

O mighty one, establish the ultimate truth. Let yourself be seen [now] and

let me [and my delusion] withdraw.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:red">As you can see, this grammatically

justifiable translation has turned the tables around.

color:black"> This verse was quoted by you to dismiss Shaiva puranas, but

it now ends up meaning that it is the Vaishnava puranas that deluded

people and Vishnu was urging Rudra to establish the ultimate truth through

Shaiva puranas and show the way other than Vishnu's delusion!

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">[Note again: Please note that this is not

necessarily my view. I know that people are bound to look at the word

"delusion" with scorn because of its negative connotations (which may

or may not be entirely accurate). For the sake of argument, I said a lot of

things so far and I have to set things straight now: Whether you apply the word

"delusion" to Vaishnava puranas or to Shaiva puranas, it does not,

IMHO, necessarily invalidate them.

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The bottomline is that certainly this is

a possible and tenable translation. My whole idea is that you cannot suggest

that we should "ignore" the stuff in Shiva purana, Linga purana etc

just because of a handful of verses in some other puranas. Those verses in

question can be interpreted differently.]

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I hope I made my point.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

On Gita

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> In the process, I'd

> stick to scriptures irrespective of whether the stance

> taken will further "religious fundamentalism, bigotry"

> and what not; obviously the objective is not to find a

> solution that decreases fundamentalism or whatever.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">As far as this scholarly debate is

concerned, I agree that promotion of religious bigotry is a non-issue.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">But, let me make a comment aside from the

debate. It is my strong personal conviction that no valid and correct relgious teaching

promotes bigotry. If one's interpretation of a religious teaching promotes

bigotry of any kind, there is certainly a problem with the interpretation and

one needs to work harder to assimilate the religious teachings better.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">If one's spirituality is the milky ocean,

one's intellect is the manthara mountain and one's contemplation is the

Vasuki snake. The mountain of intellect cannot stand by itself. In order

to not drown, it needs support from the mighty tortoise of religious tradition

(Koormavatar of Vishnu symbolized by Saturn). When that milky ocean is

churned by the mountain coiled by the snake, standing on the tortoise, first

comes the poison of bigotry and half-knowledge and then comes the nectar

of jnaana. In order to ensure that there is no damage due to the poison, one

needs a guru. The guru, like Shiva, absorbs the poison and saves one from

damage. Finally the nectar of complete jnaana comes. Without support from

the religious tradition (tortoise), the intellect (mountain) cannot stand. But

religious tradition (tortoise) and the intellect (mountain) standing on it are

not sufficient to create the nectar of jnaana. The snake of contemplation has

to coil the mountain of intellect and churn the ocean of one's spirituality. So

the generation of atma jnaana requires each component.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">If one's spiritual understanding is

resulting in bigotry of any kind, it means more churning is required!

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">[Note: This analogy is mine. It is not

from any sruti or smriti. :-) ]

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> Krishna's saying that He is worshipped

even when other

> Gods are worshipped is in Gita 9.23:

>

> ye.apyanyadevatAbhaktA yajante shraddhayAnvitAH |

> te.api mAmeva kaunteya yajantyavidhipUrvakam.h ||

>

> Even those, who worship other devatas with devotion,

> worship Me only, though not in the right way.

> (avidhipUrvakaM)

>

> It is most surprising that this verse has been taken

> to mean that worship of any devatA as is, is

> acceptable to Krishna. His magnamious compassion

> aside, but, to be complacent with such an idea, one

> must ignore the force of the phrase 'avidhipUrvakaM'.

> If there were to absolutely no difference, why then

> this 'avidhipUrvakaM'?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I simply followed Adi Sankara's

interpretation. Adi Sankara's bhashyam is given below:

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">"ye’py anya-devatA-bhaktA anyAsu devatAsu

bhaktA anya-devatA-bhaktAH santo yajante pUjayanti zraddhayA

Astikya-buddhyAnvitA anugatAH, te’pi mAm eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pUrvakam

avidhir ajJAnaM tat-pUrvakaM yajanta ity arthaH"

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Thus Adi Sankara takes

"avidhipUrvakaM" to mean "accompanied by lack

of knowledge". So I translated it as "albeit not knowing

it".

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Some other people have translated

"avidhipUrvakaM" as "not in the right way". This is also a

tenable interpretation, but I simply followed Adi Sankara.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">In fact, apart from Adi Sankaraka's

interpretation and the other popular interpretation given by you, there is

another quite tenable interpretation that is a slight variant of your

interpretation.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">vidhi = procedure (ritual)

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">vidhi pUrvakaM = connected with procedure

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">a vidhi pUrvakam = not connected

with (irrespective of) the procedure (ritual)

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">With this variation (which, I stress, is

quite defensible grammatically), the verse means "also the devotees who

pray to other gods sincerely are praying to me only, irrespective of the

procedure/rituals employed". In other words, the Lord is indicating that

irrespective of the procedures and rituals followed and irrespective of the

name of the god prayed to, all prayers reach him only and that devotion ("sraddhaya"

= with devotion) is what matters. This is non-sectarian and universal and

in tune with "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" or "vasudeva

kutumbakam" and also "sarva deva namaskaarah kesavam prati

gacchati". I could've easily given this translation also, but I went with

Adi Sankaraka's translation.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Secondly, why is there, differences in what one begets

> out of such worship? Why are worshippers of other Gods

> are referred as not knowing Him? (na tu mAmabhijAnanti

> tattvenAtashchyavanti te)

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Well, where is it clear that he is

referring to worshippers of other gods in that verse?

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The key is "tattvena" (by the

true and complete nature). First he says in 9.23 that "those who are

praying to other gods with devotion are also paying to me, albeit without knowledge

[that they are praying to me]." Then he clarifies why so in the first part

of 9.24: "I am the receiver of all prayers and efforts." This is

clarifying 9.23 and giving the rationale. Then, he declares the the second part

of 9.24: "those who do not understand me by my true nature

perish and become re-born". So he is not necessarily referring to those

who pray to other gods. Even those who pray to Krishna, but not realizing His

true nature, will perish and be reborn as the verse implies. The key is not

worshipping Krishna or Shiva or Aditya. The key is understanding the true

nature of the Almighty. How is it clear that nobody praying to Shiva is clear

about the true nature of the receiver of all effort? The issue is not whether

one is praying to Krishna or Narasimha or Shiva. The issue is whether one

understands the true nature of the receiver of all prayers and efforts of this

universe. That supreme receiver of all effort is Brahman, who Krishna

represents in these passages. Without truly understanding His nature, one will

not get moksha.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Thirdly, it makes no sense for the Lord, then, to

> reprimand elsewhere (7.20) the worshippers of other

> gods as those who are deluded by passion and by wrong

> knowledge: kAmaistaistairhR^itaj~nAnAH

> prapadyante.anyadevatAH | What then is the right

> knowledge?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The reprimand is for those who pray with

various desires. The reprimand is directed at the desires with which you pray.

Even those who pray to Krishna with desires will only get temporary happiness

as verses 9.20 and 9.21 clarify. Based on all the verses we have discussed so

far in this mail, the key is to overcome the desires, understand the true

nature of the all-pervading Brahman (represented by Krishna in Gita) and put in

effort (yajna does not necessarily mean material yajna as performed by most

people today, it basically means various kinds of efforts) without desires.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

On Sruti

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> That's fine, just wanted to tell you

that it is not

> the advaitic position. Brahman, 'in the absolute

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I never claimed I follow either advaita

or dwaita or a visistadwaita. I respect all theories and consider them all

correct in their own way. They all try to express the inexpressible, in their

own way, so that simple minds can atleast partly comprehend the

incomprehensible (or difficult-to-comprehend).

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> context' does not have any forms

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> So, as of now, I will take it that your position is

> different from advaitic nirvisheSha brahman. However,

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Yes, my concept is that Brahman is the

supreme power that existed for ever, will exist for ever, which is above the

gunas (i.e. whether Brehman has form or not is irrelevant. When I say Brehman

is simply above the three gunas, it does not make Brehman inferior to entities

with gunas. Brehman simply is above gunas. Thus some may view

Brahman to have a form and some may view Brahman to have no form, but Brahman

is above even the considerations of form or formlessness) and which fills the

entire universe (perceptible and imperceptible). Brahman manifests as different

entities with various gunas. But Brahman is untouched by the gunas of various

entities that Brehman pervades. When a soul understands the gunaateeta (perhaps

a better word than nirguna) nature of the Brahman in it, the soul overcomes the

gunas and merges with Brahman.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I am giving my thinking and philosiphy so

that people understand my views better. I never wanted to debate my views. The

debate strictly is on whether Vishnu is superior or Shiva or we better not

compare.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> notice one contradiction in your

mail: your position

> that Vishnu and Shiva are forms of Brahman contradicts

> the idea that they are Brahman's forms with various

> combinations of gunas. Brahman is said to be above

> guNAs and yet His forms are with guNAs? So then, that

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">What is the contradiction?

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Why can't Brahman, who is above gunas,

express in various forms with various gunas?

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Even if you take the theory you outlined,

you will have a similar "contradiction". Let us say Vishnu is of

sattwa guna. When you say Shiva came from him, how did sattwa guna give birth

to tamo guna? The way that sattwa guna contains all the 3 gunas makes no sense.

It is not that sattwa guna is a 100% full bucket, rajo guna is a 50% full

bucket and tamo guna is a 20% full bucket. They simply are totally three

different buckets. So, if gunaateeta Brahman giving rise to trimurtis with 3

gunas is meaningless, so is Vishnu of sattwa guna giving rise to Brahma of rajo

guna and Shiva of tamoguna. If, on the other hand, you take Vishnu to have any

other guna, please show me a sruti reference saying so. Finally, if you take

Vushni to be gunaateeta, he becomes my Brahman and whatever contradiction you

suggested would apply again.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> would make Brahman different from

His forms! The most

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">So? Is that incomprehensible?

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> important objection to all that

there is no scriptural

> support to your idea; pls show me a _shruti_

> supporting your point that Brahma is Brahman+rajo

> guNa, Vishnu = Brahman+sattva guNa and Shiva =

> Brahman+tamo guNa. Another problem would be to

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Again, I am not arguing that my

philosophy is right. I outlined my philosophy only for the sake of clarity. I

never volunteered to prove my philosophy. The argument has a narrow focus

- Is Vishnu superior to Shiva or Shiva superior to Vishnu or we better not

compare them? I hold the third position and you hold the first position, which

you set out to prove. Let us stick to it for now.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> reconcile such a position with shrutis such as

> 'tadviShNoH paramaM padaM' or 'yasmAt.h paraM

> nAparamasti' (Shvetashvatara), for, in your thesis,

> there would be something which is 'para' to Vishnu or

> Rudra or whoever.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">No, in my thesis, supreme Brahman has

three main forms - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are all forms of Brahman and are

mutually incomparable (and incomparable with Brahman too)! Because these forms

have gunas and Brahman is above gunas does not necessarily imply that these

three forms are somehow inferior. We have a tendency to grade things, but

Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are incomparable to me. None is superior and

none is inferior.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> I will make my position clear: (This will answer some

> questions raised in the latter portion of your mail).

> This is the dvaita school of Vedanta, as given by Sri

> Madhvacharya and I hope you won't just brush it under

> (a wrongly imagined) the concept of 'both advaita and

> dvaita are correct'. To say so, one must compromise on

> both doctrines. Search the net, and you will find such

> attempts at reconciliation. Many advaitins (like

> Vivekananda, for example) have reverberated

> Gaudapada's words that advaita can shelter all

> philosophies, but that is an empty boast. Neither does

> Gaudapada nor do ppl like above understand the dialect

> of dvaita -- IMO.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">That is strictly your opinion.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">To me, Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and

Madhvacharya must've visualized the same supreme divinity and must've attained

exactly the same aatma jnaana, though the message, when expressed in a

language in a systematic manner, came out differently.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Anyway, I do not want to sidetrack this

debate.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Vishnu, the Lord of Lakshmi, is supreme and absolutely

> independent. He is full of infinite auspicious

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Just thought I would clarify one thing.

When I say gunaateeta Brahman is supreme and Vishnu is a form of his with a

particular guna, I don't imply that Vishnu is dependent or inferior or that he

has a boss to report to everyday. :-)

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Shiva is one of the 11 Rudras. However, when the word

> 'Rudra' is used without an adjective, it is only the

> pradhAna-rudra that is meant and not others. This is a

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Do you have a quote from srutis that

establishes Shiva as one of the Rudras?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The eleven Rudras are

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Kapali, Pingala, Bhima, Virupaksha,

Vilohita, Sasta, Ajapada, Ahirbudhnya, Sambhu, Chanda and Bhava.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Which one is Shiva out of them? I thought

they all embody various aspects of Shiva tattva and none of them is a complete

embodiment of Shiva.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Until this is established, the rest of your

arguments don't hold water. You have only given very indirect hints and not any

direct proofs.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> The Kurma Purana

> supports the same idea:

>

> (Vishnu says:) Hey Shankara, you are not capable of

> protecting even yourself. How can you win over me in a

> war? I shall recount an old account (pUrvavR^ittaM).

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I thought we wanted to move on from

puranas.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> You came to ruin the yajna performed by Indra. Then, I

> protected that Yajna, having got your head severed.

> Then, to obtain you back, Parvati prayed to me; after

> which, you got your life due to my grace.

>

> This version should be acceptable because this idea is

> corroborated by shruti and, also by purANa

> (itihAsapurANAbhyam vedaM samupabR^imhayet --

> ityukteH).

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Well, the purana refers to Sankara, but

does the sruti too refer to him?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Your thesis further down this mail that Narayana or

> Sadashiva is the actual parabrahman, while Vishnu or

> Shiva are certain forms of Brahman associated with

> Gunas is rejected by shruti here. How is that? This

> Being, whom the wise consider as Brahman, is said to

> be the husband of lakshmI: Parabrahman with relations?

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Well, if you consider Vishnu to be

Parabrahman, the above is true. Is that definition (husband of Lakshmi, being

in the ocean etc etc) the only "limiting" definition of Parabrahman?

Are is it only a partial definition? Do you have a proof that that is the

entire definition of Parabrahman?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> It also shows that Lakshmi is NOT parabrahman; so the

> direct meaning of 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' does not

> apply!

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">So, what do you propose that "sarvam

khalvidam brahma" means?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Some more points to note: Nearly every devata (even

> their vehicles at times) are praised as Brahma in this

> passage. But the phrase 'yo deveshvadhi deva eka'

> clearly says it is ONLY one who is the greatest of

> them all. If all of them were actually one or

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">OK. So? Who is that highest deva? And,

what is the proof?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> Sri Madhvacharya's

brahmasutrabhashya and other works

> have a more complete proof in this regard. For, it is

> shown that the ambhraNI sUkta (or the devI sUkta)

> informs us of a lady whosoever she wishes, would make

> Him as Brahma or Ugra (another name of Rudra. Check up

> Nirukta if you wish to), a sage or a wise man. She

> also tells us that the source of her powers is the

> Being on the Ocean. This brings in two points: In

> addition to Her being more powerful than Brahma, Rudra

> and others, She is different from 'source of her

> powers' and more importantly, 'Source of her powers'

> is different from Brahma, Rudra ityAdi.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Could it just be Brahman and could she

represent the prakriti of this universe?

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

> Thus, noting that Brahman is said to have the

> exclusive characteristic of resting on the Ocean, one

> notes that it is indeed the well-known Vishnu who is

> Brahman.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Is it really an "exclusive

characteristic"? Is it a characteristic or a an allegory? Can the verse in

question be interpreted differently? Is the conclusion that it is Vishnu

absolute and unquestionable?

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">With no disrespect, I will skip the rest

of your writings and stop here. I am really running out of time.

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> P.S. I just saw a mail from

Sanjay-jI that it was

> Shankaracharya who put the Gita verses together. That

> is not the case. The Padma Purana gives a detailed

> account of 'gItA mAhAtmya'. Just to suit one's thesis,

> it will have to be said that Padmapurana was written

> later than Shankaracharya (!) or these verses were

> introduced after him.

 

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I think he is talking about compiling

Gita in the current form. Sanjay ji said that there were multiple versions of

Gita before Sankara and Sankara's version (compilation of slokas) was accepted

as the correct Gita.

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I'll just leave on the following note:

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">In Maharshi Valmiki's Ramayanam, Sage

Agastya comes to Lord Rama and teaches him Aditya Hridayam, which praises Sun.

One of the lines therein says

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">"brahmes'AnAcyutes'Aya

sUryAyAdityavarcase"

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">It praises Surya (Sun) as the lord of

Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. If you ask me to get a similar quote from sruti, I

may not be able to get one. But, if you accept for a moment that Sage Valmiki

and Sage Agastya were more advanced in their knowledge of sruti than any of us

and would not violate srutis, then you have to think why Sun was praised as the

lord of Trimurtis. Let us not take the superiority/lord thing too far. After

all, my concept of X>Y and X<Y being simultaneously true in a different

space may, after all, not be as silly as it seems!

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">*

* *

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Without any doubt, this was the most

instructive, scholarly and cordial debate I had on this list in a long time. It

was a great pleasure. Thank you for making me think. I learnt a lot from your

arguments and bow the scholar in you. Hopefully, I too contributed to the

ksheera saagara mathanam going on inside the hearts of some readers.

As for me, the ksheera saagara mathanam will go on!

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">May Jupiter's light shine on us,

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Narasimha

 

windowtext">

color:black">

"Courier New";mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black">

 

 

 

|| Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri

Krishnaarpanamastu ||

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

mso-color-alt:windowtext">