Guest guest Posted May 4, 2003 Report Share Posted May 4, 2003 Sarvam Sri Krsnarpanam Astu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Sanjay, Pranaams - Thank you for your clear and sagacious observations regarding the recent debate. I cannot speak of others, but for myself, this has been one of the most illuminating exchanges with some very learned scholars (Sri Narasimha, Sri Nomadeva, and Srimati Sarbani) that I have been fortunate to participate in, in a long time. Although "the kitchen got hot" on a couple of occasions, I feel the discussion contributed to all of our collective enlightenment. Your commentary is apt and to the point, except I beg to differ on the following that you wrote: The quote you give from the Sri Vamana Purana is good and the Purana are replete with such fine teachings and we can just go on inconclusively though. As Narasimha correctly said, the Puranas cannot lead to the final decision and, I may add that only the Vedas will give the final result........ This may be true in general, however, the Srimad Bhagavatam is understood to relay the true import of the Vedanta sutra (Brahma sutra), and thus stands alone among other Puranas. Vedic conclusions are condensed in the Vedanta in the form of codes, yet the masses of people in Kali-yuga cannot understand these. Thus, as was quoted before, Sri Narada Muni instructed Vyasadeva, to compile the Srimad Bhagavatam, which is the "Summum Bonum" of all Vedic shastras. The explanations of Param tattva contained therein, further elucidate all Vedic conclusions, and this why Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gave emphasis to this particular shastra over all others. Please note the following in evidence of this conclusion: artho 'yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah gayatri-bhasya-rupo 'sau vedartha-paribrmhitah purananam sama-rupah saksad-bhagavatoditah dvadasa-skandha-yukto 'yam sata-viccheda-samyutah grantho 'stadasa-sahasrah srimad-bhagavatabhidhah "‘The full meaning of the Vedanta-sutra is present in Srimad-Bhagavatam. The full purport of the Mahabharata is also contained therein. The commentary of the Brahma-gayatri is also given and fully expanded with all Vedic knowledge. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the Supreme Purana, and it was compiled by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His incarnation as Vyasadeva. There are twelve cantos, 335 chapters and eighteen thousand verses.' -- Garuda Purana Also, in the Srimad Bhagavatam itself, the following is quoted: (SB 1.3.41): sarva-vedetihasanam saram saram samuddhrtam "‘The essence of all Vedic literature and all histories has been collected in Srimad-Bhagavatam.' These statements establishing the pre-eminence of Srimad Bhagavatam do not diminish the importance of other Puranas, however - they simply indicate that while many Puranas may be inconclusive, the Srimad Bhagavatam carries the full important of Vedanta. Thank you for listening....... Best wishes, Respectfully, Robert ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJC and ACVA visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2003 Report Share Posted May 4, 2003 Hare Krishna Robert Prabhu I am unable to download, so trying to reply mail from net. I am not saying that the Bhagavata Purana is not complete nor am I refuting the validity of the Bhagavat Gita. The point I was making is that when a father has eighteen children, then how do we decide who is to be crowned the king? We ask the father of course. In the same manner when people debate as to what is right and what is not. We can just go to the vedas and conclude easily. For there can be none to challenge the veracity of the vedas. However to reach that stage we need to croos another leg and that is defining the various terms used for spiritual goal. Thank you for your excellent views With profound regards Sanjay vedic astrology, "Robert A. Koch" <rk@r...> wrote: > Sarvam Sri Krsnarpanam Astu > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Sanjay, > > Pranaams - > > Thank you for your clear and sagacious observations regarding the recent > debate. I cannot speak of others, but for myself, this has been one of the > most illuminating exchanges with some very learned scholars (Sri Narasimha, > Sri Nomadeva, and Srimati Sarbani) that I have been fortunate to > participate in, in a long time. Although "the kitchen got hot" on a couple > of occasions, I feel the discussion contributed to all of our collective > enlightenment. > > Your commentary is apt and to the point, except I beg to differ on the > following that you wrote: > > >The quote you give from the Sri Vamana Purana is good and the Purana are > >replete with such fine teachings and we can just go on inconclusively > >though. As Narasimha correctly said, the Puranas cannot lead to the final > >decision and, I may add that only the Vedas will give the final result........ > > This may be true in general, however, the Srimad Bhagavatam is understood > to relay the true import of the Vedanta sutra (Brahma sutra), and thus > stands alone among other Puranas. Vedic conclusions are condensed in the > Vedanta in the form of codes, yet the masses of people in Kali-yuga cannot > understand these. Thus, as was quoted before, Sri Narada Muni instructed > Vyasadeva, to compile the Srimad Bhagavatam, which is the "Summum Bonum" of > all Vedic shastras. The explanations of Param tattva contained therein, > further elucidate all Vedic conclusions, and this why Sri Caitanya > Mahaprabhu gave emphasis to this particular shastra over all > others. Please note the following in evidence of this conclusion: > artho 'yam brahma-sutranam > bharatartha-vinirnayah > gayatri-bhasya-rupo 'sau > vedartha-paribrmhitah > > purananam sama-rupah > saksad-bhagavatoditah > dvadasa-skandha-yukto 'yam > sata-viccheda-samyutah > > grantho 'stadasa-sahasrah > srimad-bhagavatabhidhah > > "'The full meaning of the Vedanta-sutra is present in Srimad- Bhagavatam. > The full purport of the Mahabharata is also contained therein. The > commentary of the Brahma-gayatri is also given and fully expanded with all > Vedic knowledge. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the Supreme Purana, and it was > compiled by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His incarnation as > Vyasadeva. There are twelve cantos, 335 chapters and eighteen thousand > verses.' -- Garuda Purana > > Also, in the Srimad Bhagavatam itself, the following is quoted: (SB 1.3.41): > sarva-vedetihasanam > saram saram samuddhrtam > > "'The essence of all Vedic literature and all histories has been collected > in Srimad-Bhagavatam.' > > These statements establishing the pre-eminence of Srimad Bhagavatam do not > diminish the importance of other Puranas, however - they simply indicate > that while many Puranas may be inconclusive, the Srimad Bhagavatam carries > the full important of Vedanta. > > Thank you for listening....... > > Best wishes, > Respectfully, > Robert > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer > Faculty Member, SJC and ACVA > visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, > http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or > Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 > > Sanjay Rath [srath] > Sunday, May 04, 2003 11:31 PM > Vedic-Astrology (AT) (DOT) > [vedic astrology] Sadashiva darshan Dear Sanjay-jI, Thanks for your encouraging words. == This has been among the finest mail exchanges in a long time. I think the problem this debate is facing is that you all are trying to determine 'who is superior' and such thoughts will naturally come to people living in Bhu loka as this Loka is ruled by Mars. Mars ruling this loka will cause such == Honestly, it was just me and Sri Robert who 'trying to determine 'who is superior''. PVR garu and Sarbani-Ji were pretty much opposing the very 'move' so to speak. I am not sure about Mars ruling the bhU loka, but one thing is clear: this idea of who is the Supreme is as old as the Vedas themselves: kasmai devAyA haviShA vidhema? == thoughts to dominate the thinking as this is the *real* effect of Kali. After all, what is the definition, if any, for God? Is it He who is more powerful, superior, has more muscle power?? == Dear sir, you are pushing many a great scholars, perhaps even some vedic Rishis (see hArita smR^iti, for example) to be under the 'real' effect of kali. Let alone the reasonability of such, it still cannot be pushed as a polemical point. The Brahmasutras start with the definition of God: janmAdyasya yataH -- From Whom, the acts of creation, sustenance etc of this cosmos, proceeds. How is He/She to be known? shAstrayonitvAt.h -- From the shAstra. (Why, from the shAstra? Because it is a pramANa. Why is it a pramANa: because it is apaurusheya and nitya: ata eva cha nityatvaM) Superiority: Being Brahman itself is superiority. More qualities, being the base and basis of everybody else and every other thing. shAstra will give answer to every question of yours, sir. == This is Kali yuga and we are in Bhu loka without an iota of doubt. If instead the debate would have been based on 'who has more goodness?' then ... Of course I am not suggesting that you start one now. == Superiority was not seen as muscle power at all so far. Though even that can indicate it. svAtantryaM, ajatvaM, anantatvaM, janana-maraNa-hInatvaM, svAdhIna-sattAtvaM -- these decide. The Upanishads are clearer -- ato anyadArtaM. There is no other (apart from Brahman) who is not touched by misery. Therefore it is only Brahman who can get us out of miseries in all lokas. == The second problem with this debate is that there is no agreement about the goal. It should first have been decided as to what is the goal of human existance? Is it (a) Moksha (b) Kaivalyam © Param Padam (d) Nirvana etc. What are these terms? do they mean the same thing or are they different and if so, then in what way are they different. == 'paramaM padaM', 'amR^itatvaM', 'mokSha' all point to the same thing. Please read the phala-adhyAya of the brahmasutras. == If some of the greatest panditas of India could not resolve the superiority debate in the last few thousand years, it is unlikely that you can do so in the next few weeks. == Let me clarify that it was not my intent or intention to resolve any issue. I have put forth certain quotes from the scriptures to justify the point that Vishnu is Supreme. The thing about 'greatest paNDits' not resolving is not a serious difficulty: even greatest of men have their biases and prejudices. And in the process, they will forget shruti. uttamaH puruShastvanyaH paramAtmetyudAhR^itaH | yo lokatrayamAvishya bibhartyavyaya IshvaraH || yasmAtxaramatIto.ahamaxarAdapi chottamaH | ato.asmi loke vede cha prathitaH puruShottamaH || Regards, Nomadeva The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 Om Gurave Namah Dear Sanjay, A wonderful explanation given here by you and I would like your views on this one point just to clear some of my own confusion...you wrote: .....You see, if we were to worship Shiva and see Him as a powerful God with great powers at His command and destroying everything, then He will surely do so. Instead, if we see Him as the kind and compassionate Shiva Who drinks the sorrow in our lives caused by the poison of sin and redeems us, gives us another chance, then, like Maharishi Atri all our sins are destroyed........ .....By these lines do you mean that we manifest God in our lives in which ever form we pray to? And so this is the reason why all Goddesses and Gods are in so many different bhavas and forms as they only reflect the various emotions the soul or the mind[mana] goes through and the reason of this varied worship is to bless our life with that emotion which is reflected by a particular dietey? In which case this also becomes another reason for remedies where worship of the different dieties is given? Please do write some more on this. Thanking you. Regards, Kanupriya. >"Sanjay Rath" <srath >vedic astrology >"Vedic-Astrology (AT) (DOT) " <vedic astrology> >[vedic astrology] Sadashiva darshan >Sun, 4 May 2003 23:31:22 +0530 > >||Om brihaspataye namah|| >Dear Sarbani, Robert, Nomadeva, Narasimha and all who participated: > >This has been among the finest mail exchanges in a long time. I think the >problem this debate is facing is that you all are trying to determine 'who >is superior' and such thoughts will naturally come to people living in Bhu >loka as this Loka is ruled by Mars. Mars ruling this loka will cause such >thoughts to dominate the thinking as this is the *real* effect of Kali. >After all, what is the definition, if any, for God? Is it He who is more >powerful, superior, has more muscle power?? For a moment turn your eyes >away from this debate and look at life on earth. > >Who rules? The one who is good (Jupiter - satya loka principle) or who is >powerful (bhu loka principle). Naturally muscle rules. See USA is the most >powerful nation not because they have more saints but because they have >more bombs. See the list of some of the 'Greatest men of the past 1000 >years' - Alexander 'the Great', Akbar - 'the Great', Chegiz Khan - 'the >great', Ashoka --the great'. These men were great because they were great >butchers. >In this manner you can see 'who decides?, Who wins? and so on. Even the >education system has been reduced to a competition where people like Albert >Einstein are declared misfit or incompetent until a 'fluke of destiny' >shows that they actually are great genius minds. > >This is Kali yuga and we are in Bhu loka without an iota of doubt. If >instead the debate would have been based on 'who has more goodness?' then >... Of course I am not suggesting that you start one now. >You will appreciate the calculations of the Maharishis in this regard that >even the exalted planets did not make any difference except that for a >change, a lot of material evidence like the Purana and other nice >arguments, word by word meanings etc were discussed. > >The second problem with this debate is that there is no agreement about the >goal. It should first have been decided as to what is the goal of human >existance? Is it (a) Moksha (b) Kaivalyam © Param Padam (d) Nirvana etc. >What are these terms? do they mean the same thing or are they different and >if so, then in what way are they different. > >The quote you give from the Sri Vamana Purana is good and the Purana are >replete with such fine teachings and we can just go on inconclusively >though. As Narasimha correctly said, the Puranas cannot lead to the final >decision and, I may add that only the Vedas will give the final result. But >then, what are we looking for in our definition of God? > >The third problem is in the definition of the attitude of the worshipper >which will again depend on the definition of God in whatever manner may >exist in his head. If the worshipper sees his God as mighty and powerful >then God will surely give him such kinds of experiences when he gets >thrashed and God comes to his rescue. When he sees his God as the >knowledable one, then he gets the knowledge. That is where many people make >a mistake. Jad bhava tad Isa. > >You see, if we were to worship Shiva and see Him as a powerful God with >great powers at His command and destroying everything, then He will surely >do so. Instead, if we see Him as the kind and compassionate Shiva Who >drinks the sorrow in our lives caused by the poison of sin and redeems us, >gives us another chance, then, like Maharishi Atri all our sins are >destroyed. If we look at Vishnu and see Him flying in on Garuda to take us >to Vaikuntha, then the attitude is correct. On the other hand if we were to >pray to Vishnu and think only of how powerful he is then although we >worship Vishnu externally, our attitude is like that of worshipping Skanda. > >If some of the greatest panditas of India could not resolve the superiority >debate in the last few thousand years, it is unlikely that you can do so in >the next few weeks. And at least now you know why. It is in the definition >of God. How do you see your God? And realise that the moment you only look >for 'Goodness' in Him like the souls of Satya Loka, then this debate >(within you!!) shall end then and there. > >Finally, please never forget the Shanti mantra which must be said at the >end of every pooja. All the Gods are fine so long as there is peace. With >these good thoughts from Brihaspati, I end. good night. I have given some >food for serious thinking and introspection. > >With best wishes & regards, >I remain >Sanjay Rath >-------- >Mail: H-5 B.J.B Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751014, India >Tel:+91-674-2436871, Webpages: http://srath.com >-------- > > >sentto-1229044-22511-1051898694-srath=vsnl.com >[sentto-1229044-22511-1051898694-srath=vsnl.com\ ]On >Behalf Of Sarbani Sarkar >Friday, May 02, 2003 11:40 PM >vedic astrology >RE: [vedic astrology] Consolidated reply to Nomadeva-Sadashiva >darshan > > >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. > _______________ Can write well? Let's talk. http://server1.msn.co.in/msnleads/tis/index.asp Right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 Dear Gurudev, SJC policy that 'we do not preach, we teach'. In simple words, we do not preach any particular faith and people of all faiths, beliefs and even those who do not believe in God are welcome to come and learn Jyotish. We will *try to* teach the person what we know and then they have to go and 'Struggle with their Atmakaraka'. Wow.So beautifully said.You made my day and gave me hope . MAY SJC LIVE FOR EVER. With regards, Jagmeet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Sanjay Rath [srath] Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:02 AM vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Sadashiva darshan Dear shrI Sanjay-jI, > Anyway its over now I am assuming that to be a gentlemanly way of asking this discussion to be ended. I shall comply to that, though with some last clarifications. Hari has also raised a question re the utility of the exercise, the response to which is here. == The Brahmasutras start with the definition of God: janmAdyasya yataH -- From Whom, the acts of creation, sustenance etc of this cosmos, proceeds. [Rath:] Is it Supremacy or the 'Older'... == Brahman is supreme, by the way of Upanishads. There are tons of upanishadic vAkyAs; actually all Vedas set out to preach Brahman's supremacy. Another point is that the definition of Brahman as mentioned in the Brahmasutra is not a 'definition' per se. It gives an identification mark. == How is He/She to be known? shAstrayonitvAt.h -- From the shAstra. (Why, from the shAstra? Because it is a pramANa. Why is it a pramANa: because it is apaurusheya and nitya: ata eva cha nityatvaM) [Rath:] Prabhu, to my scanty sansk rit knowledge, Nitya would mean eternal and not superior. In fact this word has been used to describe Ganesha, Durga, Shiva, Vishnu and Jagannath Mahaprabhu! So, I wonder if it can resolve your debate. == Sir, that sUtra was not meant to differentiate Vishnu from others. That was to describe why Vedas should be accepted as a valid pramANa (authority; for the lack of a better word). Vedas are apaurusheya and nitya. == Superiority: Being Brahman itself is superiority. More qualities, being the base and basis of everybody else and every other thing. [Rath:] My point was simple - will purity and goodness be the determining factor? == Determining factors are given by shruti. Limitedness is counter-negative of Brahman. jananatva (being subject to birth) is another counter-negative. When we determine that Being who is the basis of everybody else, surely qualities such as 'purity' and 'goodness' be the maximum in Brahman. Cf. Ishavasya's 'shuddhaM akAyaM apApaviddhaM'. == Superiority was not seen as muscle power at all so far. Though even that can indicate it. svAtantryaM, ajatvaM, anantatvaM, janana-maraNa-hInatvaM, svAdhIna-sattAtvaM -- these decide. The Upanishads are clearer -- ato anyadArtaM. There is no other (apart from Brahman) who is not touched by misery. Therefore it is only Brahman who can get us out of miseries in all lokas. [Rath:] And does this Brahman reside within you? Are you not that very Brahman? Then why are you not superior or is it that Brahman within each one of us that impels to prove our superiority? ==== Brahman resides in us; yes -- yo Atmani tiShThan AtmAnaM antaro yamayati (Brihadaranyaka). But I am not Brahman. Had I been the Brahman, the Upanishad would NOT have said -- Brahman resides IN you. Just like the person who resides in a house is not same as the house, Brahman is not same as the jIva. == As regard miseries, I cannot easily understand such philosophies. Even Sri Rama suffered the misery of having His spouse kidnapped. The suffering has been explained in detail in the Ramayana. Or maybe you say that the Atma was just observer and does not feel the suffering, and this is the Brahman is it? So, Who was observing and who was suffering when Sita was kidnapped? Prabhu, could you please explain all this for I am still confused about what Brahman is. == Simpler idea: Rama did not suffer. It was a drama (Padma Purana, uttara khaNDa). The same thing with Lord Krishna also. He could create progeny out of nowhere right on the war field, without even the aid of any spouse; and he had to go to Kailasa for obtaining progeny? Before we say that any of the Lord's avataras actually suffer, or show ignorance, we should keep Krishna's own words: paraM bhAvamajAnanto mamAvyayamanuttamam.h || 7.24 nAhaM prakAshaH sarvasya yogamAyAsamAvR^itaH | mUDho.ayaM nAbhijAnAti loko mAmajamavyayam.h || 7.25 Rama's drama of suffering was a directive to all us normal beings to show the consequence of excessive attachment to one's wife. To say that he actually suffered is to commit the blunder of overwriting shruti (that says that all avatAras of Brahman are pUrNa in all respects and never touched by sorrow) using smriti. There are many such incidents in Ramayana that shruti overrides. For example, the incident of Indra 'meeting' ahalya. Ramayana depicts that Indra is cursed by the sage Gautama to lose his potency, Puranas say that Indra was cursed to have 1000 eyes, but shruti (taittarIya-brAhmaNa) overrides all: tasya loma na cha mIyate: Not even his hair was affected by it (apparently because he performed the act in the spirit of niShkAma karma). Read 'rAmatApanIyopaniShat.h' to know how Lord Rama is beyond all sorts of misery. == 'paramaM padaM', 'amR^itatvaM', 'mokSha' all point to the same thing. Please read the phala-adhyAya of the brahmasutras. [Rath:] Are you sure Nomadeva prabhu? Pointing at the same thing and being the same thing or meaning the same thing can be very wide. How many types of kaivalyam are there? == Some people point out to kali-santaraNa upanishad to point out that there are four types of mukti. Even if one doubts the authenticity of that Upanishad, this concept can be found in Mahanarayana Upanishad and in other portions of Taittariya anuvaka. Sir, I am not prabhu. My official name is Krishna. You can call me that. == [Rath:] Not disagreeing on that. But on the word Supremacy. == 'yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva', 'yo deveShu adhi eka eva', 'agnir vai devAnAmavamo viShNuH paramaH', 'uttamaH puruShastvanyaH' -- these and many more point out to the Supremacy concept. == > I have put forth certain quotes > from the scriptures to justify the point that Vishnu > is Supreme. > Regards, > Nomadeva Dear Nomadeva, Is there anything to be gained from proving that Vishnu is supreme? Do you want to prove that infinity is greater than infinity? (Narasimha, your analogy is simple but profound!) Will worship of Vishnu alone and not of Shiva/Brahma yield divine bliss? == Your question assumes that Shiva or Brahma are also infinities. Shruti disagrees, because both Shiva and Brahma are seen to be created (eko nArAyaNa AsInna brahma na IshAno), to be under Brahman's control. Why all this proof of Supremacy? How this chain started should be clue. In any case, the question is important. To get correct, albeit incomplete, knowledge of Brahman is important. The Ishavasya says that a person who worships Brahman wrongly will enter binding darkness. A similar voice is opined in Brihadaranyaka as well. The Katha Upanishad says that, not knowing Brahman correctly, one is liable to 'fall' like water from a hill. On the other hand, the Purusha sukta says that there is no other way to moksha, but by right knowledge of Brahman: tamevaM vidvAnamR^ita iha bhavati | nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | The Mundaka Upanishad says that one should be engaged in the Brahman (who is the support of the entire cosmos) and shun all other talk: yasmin.h dyauH pR^ithivI chAntarikshamotaM manaH saha prANaishcha sarvaiH | tamevaikaM jAnatha AtmAnamanyA vAcho vimuJNchathAmR^itasyaiSha setuH || and that Brahman is the bridge to Moksha. Unless one identifies the Brahman properly (atleast, one should identify what this Brahman is not), how can even one know what is 'other talk' (anyavAcha muJNchata) that the Upanishad behooves us to shun? Thus, identification of Brahman is not futile. The moment Brahman is identified, its vast superiority over everybody else is inescapable; i.e., if one sticks to scriptures. In any case, identifying Brahman with any limited being is to ignore the instruction of 'neti neti'. == If I take any name of God and worship with sincerity and devotion, it gives me great peace and joy. That is enough for me. == Good. It just struck me that there are enough atheists and agnostics who don't take anybody's names, but still have great peace and joy. So, 'having great peace and joy' is not really dependent on whether one take's God(s)' names or not. But achieving moksha is. It is dependent, not on 'feel-good' theories, but on knowledge from scriptures, rumination and then meditation: shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH | There is no other way: nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | Hopefully this will be my last post because the discussion seems to be being taken personally. Narasimha-jI gave me some good discussion, for which I am thankful to him. Narasimha-garu, if you get a quote that Shiva is different from Rudra in shruti, more importantly, Shiva is different from Rudra OF shruti, please let me know. As of now, the rudra prashna shows no difference between them. Also, the kAThakAraNyaka reference given earlier is clear that the devatas go to Shivaloka and find someother being who says that He is the shiva's shivatva. The devatas then remark: if that is the case, then you must be sarvAdhipati. Regards, Nomadeva The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Nomadeva, Thanks for all the "Rasadautana" served by you to all. There was never a doubt that the path on which you traversed can be challenged till the end and all who try to do so are bound to fail both through pramana's and Logic. Thank you once again... Namaskaars.. sriram nayak Nomadeva Sharma wrote: > > Sanjay Rath [srath] > Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:02 AM > vedic astrology > RE: [vedic astrology] Sadashiva darshan > > Dear shrI Sanjay-jI, > > > Anyway its over now > > I am assuming that to be a gentlemanly way of asking > this discussion to be ended. I shall comply to that, > though with some last clarifications. Hari has also > raised a question re the utility of the exercise, the > response to which is here. > > == > The Brahmasutras start with the definition of God: > > janmAdyasya yataH -- From Whom, the acts of creation, > sustenance etc of this cosmos, proceeds. [Rath:] Is it > Supremacy or the 'Older'... > == > Brahman is supreme, by the way of Upanishads. There > are tons of upanishadic vAkyAs; actually all Vedas set > out to preach Brahman's supremacy. Another point is > that the definition of Brahman as mentioned in the > Brahmasutra is not a 'definition' per se. It gives an > identification mark. > > == > How is He/She to be known? > > shAstrayonitvAt.h -- From the shAstra. (Why, from the > shAstra? Because it is a pramANa. Why is it a pramANa: > because it is apaurusheya and nitya: ata eva cha > nityatvaM) > > [Rath:] Prabhu, to my scanty sansk rit knowledge, > Nitya would mean eternal and not superior. In fact > this word has been used to describe Ganesha, Durga, > Shiva, Vishnu and Jagannath Mahaprabhu! So, I wonder > if it can resolve your debate. > == > > Sir, that sUtra was not meant to differentiate Vishnu > from others. That was to describe why Vedas should be > accepted as a valid pramANa (authority; for the lack > of a better word). Vedas are apaurusheya and nitya. > > == > Superiority: Being Brahman itself is superiority. More > qualities, being the base and basis of everybody else > and every other thing. > > [Rath:] My point was simple - will purity and goodness > be the determining factor? > == > Determining factors are given by shruti. Limitedness > is counter-negative of Brahman. jananatva (being > subject to birth) is another counter-negative. > When we determine that Being who is the basis of > everybody else, surely qualities such as 'purity' and > 'goodness' be the maximum in Brahman. Cf. Ishavasya's > 'shuddhaM akAyaM apApaviddhaM'. > > == > > Superiority was not seen as muscle power at all so > far. Though even that can indicate it. svAtantryaM, > ajatvaM, anantatvaM, janana-maraNa-hInatvaM, > svAdhIna-sattAtvaM -- these decide. The Upanishads are > clearer -- ato anyadArtaM. There is no other (apart > from Brahman) who is not touched by misery. Therefore > it is only Brahman who can get us out of miseries in > all lokas. > > [Rath:] And does this Brahman reside within you? Are > you not that very Brahman? Then why are you not > superior or is it that Brahman within each one of us > that impels to prove our superiority? > ==== > > Brahman resides in us; yes -- yo Atmani tiShThan > AtmAnaM antaro yamayati (Brihadaranyaka). But I am not > Brahman. Had I been the Brahman, the Upanishad would > NOT have said -- Brahman resides IN you. Just like the > person who resides in a house is not same as the > house, Brahman is not same as the jIva. > > == > As regard miseries, I cannot easily understand such > philosophies. Even Sri Rama suffered the misery of > having His spouse kidnapped. The suffering has been > explained in detail in the Ramayana. Or maybe you say > that the Atma was just observer and does not feel the > suffering, and this is the Brahman is it? So, Who was > observing and who was suffering when Sita was > kidnapped? Prabhu, could you please explain all this > for I am still confused about what Brahman is. > == > > Simpler idea: Rama did not suffer. It was a drama > (Padma Purana, uttara khaNDa). The same thing with > Lord Krishna also. He could create progeny out of > nowhere right on the war field, without even the aid > of any spouse; and he had to go to Kailasa for > obtaining progeny? Before we say that any of the > Lord's avataras actually suffer, or show ignorance, we > should keep Krishna's own words: > > paraM bhAvamajAnanto mamAvyayamanuttamam.h || 7.24 > nAhaM prakAshaH sarvasya yogamAyAsamAvR^itaH | > mUDho.ayaM nAbhijAnAti loko mAmajamavyayam.h || 7.25 > > Rama's drama of suffering was a directive to all us > normal beings to show the consequence of excessive > attachment to one's wife. To say that he actually > suffered is to commit the blunder of overwriting > shruti (that says that all avatAras of Brahman are > pUrNa in all respects and never touched by sorrow) > using smriti. > > There are many such incidents in Ramayana that shruti > overrides. For example, the incident of Indra > 'meeting' ahalya. Ramayana depicts that Indra is > cursed by the sage Gautama to lose his potency, > Puranas say that Indra was cursed to have 1000 eyes, > but shruti (taittarIya-brAhmaNa) overrides all: tasya > loma na cha mIyate: Not even his hair was affected by > it (apparently because he performed the act in the > spirit of niShkAma karma). Read > 'rAmatApanIyopaniShat.h' to know how Lord Rama is > beyond all sorts of misery. > > == > 'paramaM padaM', 'amR^itatvaM', 'mokSha' all point to > the same thing. Please read the phala-adhyAya of the > brahmasutras. > [Rath:] Are you sure Nomadeva prabhu? Pointing at the > same thing and being the same thing or meaning the > same thing can be very wide. How many types of > kaivalyam are there? > == > > Some people point out to kali-santaraNa upanishad to > point out that there are four types of mukti. Even if > one doubts the authenticity of that Upanishad, this > concept can be found in Mahanarayana Upanishad and in > other portions of Taittariya anuvaka. > > Sir, I am not prabhu. My official name is Krishna. You > can call me that. > > == > [Rath:] Not disagreeing on that. But on the word > Supremacy. > == > 'yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva', 'yo deveShu adhi eka > eva', 'agnir vai devAnAmavamo viShNuH paramaH', > 'uttamaH puruShastvanyaH' -- these and many more point > out to the Supremacy concept. > > == > > I have put forth certain quotes > > from the scriptures to justify the point that Vishnu > > is Supreme. > > Regards, > > Nomadeva > > Dear Nomadeva, > > Is there anything to be gained from proving that > Vishnu is supreme? Do you want to prove that infinity > is greater than infinity? (Narasimha, your analogy is > simple but profound!) Will worship of Vishnu alone and > not of Shiva/Brahma yield divine bliss? > > == > > Your question assumes that Shiva or Brahma are also > infinities. Shruti disagrees, because both Shiva and > Brahma are seen to be created (eko nArAyaNa AsInna > brahma na IshAno), to be under Brahman's control. > > Why all this proof of Supremacy? How this chain > started should be clue. In any case, the question is > important. To get correct, albeit incomplete, > knowledge of Brahman is important. The Ishavasya says > that a person who worships Brahman wrongly will enter > binding darkness. A similar voice is opined in > Brihadaranyaka as well. The Katha Upanishad says that, > not knowing Brahman correctly, one is liable to 'fall' > like water from a hill. > > On the other hand, the Purusha sukta says that there > is no other way to moksha, but by right knowledge of > Brahman: tamevaM vidvAnamR^ita iha bhavati | nAnyaH > panthA vidyate.ayanAya | The Mundaka Upanishad says > that one should be engaged in the Brahman (who is the > support of the entire cosmos) and shun all other talk: > > yasmin.h dyauH pR^ithivI chAntarikshamotaM manaH saha > prANaishcha sarvaiH | > tamevaikaM jAnatha AtmAnamanyA vAcho > vimuJNchathAmR^itasyaiSha setuH || > > and that Brahman is the bridge to Moksha. > > Unless one identifies the Brahman properly (atleast, > one should identify what this Brahman is not), how can > even one know what is 'other talk' (anyavAcha > muJNchata) that the Upanishad behooves us to shun? > Thus, identification of Brahman is not futile. The > moment Brahman is identified, its vast superiority > over everybody else is inescapable; i.e., if one > sticks to scriptures. In any case, identifying Brahman > with any limited being is to ignore the instruction of > 'neti neti'. > > == > If I take any name of God and worship with sincerity > and devotion, it gives me great peace and joy. That is > enough for me. > > == > > Good. It just struck me that there are enough atheists > and agnostics who don't take anybody's names, but > still have great peace and joy. So, 'having great > peace and joy' is not really dependent on whether one > take's God(s)' names or not. But achieving moksha is. > It is dependent, not on 'feel-good' theories, but on > knowledge from scriptures, rumination and then > meditation: shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH | > There is no other way: nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | > > Hopefully this will be my last post because the > discussion seems to be being taken personally. > Narasimha-jI gave me some good discussion, for which I > am thankful to him. > > Narasimha-garu, if you get a quote that Shiva is > different from Rudra in shruti, more importantly, > Shiva is different from Rudra OF shruti, please let me > know. As of now, the rudra prashna shows no difference > between them. Also, the kAThakAraNyaka reference given > earlier is clear that the devatas go to Shivaloka and > find someother being who says that He is the shiva's > shivatva. The devatas then remark: if that is the > case, then you must be sarvAdhipati. > > Regards, > Nomadeva > > > > The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search. > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Dear Nomadeva, > == > > Your question assumes that Shiva or Brahma are also > infinities. Shruti disagrees, because both Shiva and > Brahma are seen to be created (eko nArAyaNa AsInna > brahma na IshAno), to be under Brahman's control. The trinity of Gods as I understand it is: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the protector and Shiva, the destroyer. Are you saying that Brahma and Shiva are essentially irrelevant? I assume you identify the Brahman with Vishnu? > == > If I take any name of God and worship with sincerity > and devotion, it gives me great peace and joy. That is > enough for me. > > == > > Good. It just struck me that there are enough atheists > and agnostics who don't take anybody's names, but > still have great peace and joy. So, 'having great > peace and joy' is not really dependent on whether one > take's God(s)' names or not. But achieving moksha is. > It is dependent, not on 'feel-good' theories, but on > knowledge from scriptures, rumination and then > meditation: shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH | > There is no other way: nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | This is pure semantics. Where was the need to bring in atheists and agnostics? They say they have great peace and joy. We do not know for sure but we must respect their opinions. Secondly, it is not just about 'taking Gods name' alone. I had added "worship with sincerity and devotion". I sense some word play here and also some derision on your part. The "great peace and joy" doesnt come by itself. It is not so easy as you imply it. Lastly, from a jyotish viewpoint, what is your atmakaraka? regards Hari 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.