RE: -Sadashiva darshan -- to Sarbani-jI.

[Guest guest]

 

Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani]

 

Friday, May 02, 2003 11:40 PM

vedic astrology

RE: [vedic astrology] Consolidated reply to

Nomadeva-Sadashiva darshan

 

Dear Sarbani-jI,

 

===

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.

===

 

I have given instances in reply to PVR-jI, where he

has made factual errors. Greatness does not mean

error-free. Moreover, as far as I see it, he was a

great orator, a very quick learner and a person with

great energy for making this nation progress.

 

Now, all that has nothing to do with scriptures or

even less dvaita. Is it taboo to assess 'great

people'?

 

===

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

===

Using a style of argument that greatness warrants no

examination, the argument that advaita and dvaita are

not incompatible renders both Shankara and Ramanuja,

Madhva (and not 'Madhava') rather skilled not even to

understand the compatibility, esp based on

illustrations such as above.

 

In any case, note that Chaitanya has only written a

'shikShAkshTaka'. Apart from that, there is no

literature from him. 'achintya-bheda-abheda' is what

was developed by Baladeva in his govinda-bhAShya.

 

The idea of Chaitanya's visit to Udipi is considered a

hoax by mAdhvas (i.e. followers of Madhva). Know why?

The issues supposedly discussed by Chaitanya with the

'leading Tattvavadi' depicts the dvaita position

wrongly, Madhya 9.256. Further verses too.

 

Also, the idea of 'achintya-bheda-abheda' is a far far

cry from 'abheda' of advaita or 'paJNchabheda' of

dvaita. You have to compromise BOTH, actually give up

on nearly all core concepts to say that it is a

reconcilation.

 

Shankara himself denounces the idea that saguNa and

nirguNa are two sides of same coin.

===

 

Thirdly, what I really wanted to share with you is a

beautiful chapter from the Vamana Purana. Nomadeva

would have problems with the translation

===

 

Not at all. I go with the direct meaning and since

this verse claims identity on the face of it, one

notes the guideline in Padma purana: purANa

(6.71.114): abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA

tathA | ityAdi sarvaM mohAya kathyate putra nAnyathA

||

 

However, using the kind of adhyAhAra PVR-jI did,

here's a translation of the verses in question:

 

==

ahaM yogAt.h sa bhagavAn viShNuH, yaH cha asau saH

avyayaH [iva bhavAmi] | na AvAbhyAM (viShNoH

antaryAmitvAt.h AvayoH matayoH vA kriyAyoH vA)

visheSho asti | (viShNuH) eka eva (paramAtmA) |

(viShNu iti bAhyarUpa, shiva iti mamAntaryAmirupatayA)

dvidhA sthitaH | yatnAt krakachamadaya Chindadhvam

mama vigraham, tathA.api drishyate vishnuH mama dehe

sanAtanaH | ekaharo bhavedyastu vishnubhaktashcha yo

bhaved, ubhau tau, viShNubhaktaH mamabhaktashcha,

sadR^ishau loke nAtra kArya vichAraNa | 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

(viShNvAnugraheNa) dhatte bhagavan sarvapujya

sadashivah | shaN^karasya vachah srutva shailadyah

pramathottama roudraishcha vaishnavaishchaiva dhritam

chihnnai sahasrashah Ardhena vaishnavavapurdhena

haravigrahah |

==

 

Anyway, there are numerous such episodes where both

Vishnu and Shiva proclaim identity to each other. A

strictly logical position is that such contradicts

those that consider one of them superior _to the

other_.

 

In some cases, even simple common sense should warn

the reader. Consider the incident of Krishna's war

with Banasura. Shiva comes to the latter's protection,

but is beaten clean, is made to lose his consciousness

and after all that they proclaim identity to each

other. That's a pretty cool way of saying that they

are identical to each other; beat the other up, make

that person lose consciousness and then claim

identity??? Which is why it is safe to follow what the

purANas themselves say about these. The idea of

interpolations can cut the argument either way, as we

have seen.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.