To Chandrasekhar-jI

[Guest guest]

>

> Chandrashekhar [boxdel]

> Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:34 AM

> vedic astrology

> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: To

Chandrasekhar-jI (to Nomadeva)

>

> 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.

 

It is unnecessary and superimposed interpretation that

it is the Paramatma IN Krishna or Vishnu saying all

that. The direct meaning has no 'bAdhaka'.

 

> 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.

 

The problem with such an interpretation is that

Paramatma should then have the forms of 'mArgashira'

mAsa, sAmaveda, silence (yes, you have to take it

literally), a chandas (!), the form of spring etc.

Also, what about other mAsas, other vedas, sounds,

other metres, other seasons -- they are NOT forms of

Paramatma?

 

A simpler explanation that is less overbearing on

one's sense of logic is that, if any speciality is

seen in a certain class of objects, that speciality is

due to Lord's vibhUti on/in that object or attribute.

 

Btw, have you heard about 'sajAtIya' and 'vijAtIya'

concepts? If yes, there is some chance of knowing how

to interpret 'pANDAvAnAM dhananjayaH' or similar stuff

vs 'AdityAnAmahaM viShNu' or 'vR^iShNInAM vAsudeva'.

 

> 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.

 

I am surprised that it did not strike you as

contradictory: If the Lord is situated 'equally' in

all beings, why should He say, now, that He is so & so

of a certain class.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Nomadeva,

In another reply to Narasimharao, you have tried to belittle Shiva as only one

of the Rudras,why do you not apply the same logic to what the Lord says about

Vishnu and Krishna.

Be kind to use same yardstick of logic to all dieties and the Lord's sayings. By

not doing so it is apparent that you are not interested in a genunine discussion

It is no use giving Shankaracharyas statements in one post and calling

Adwaitawad as silly in other mail. This just shows that you have not understood

that even the Lord in Shrimadbhagavat Gita has not called others opinion on the

state of death as silly and calling names to those who do not agree with you is

not an indication of a serious seeker of truth which the Lord advised Arjuna to

become. Calling names to such sages as Vivekanand and Shankaracharya known to

Hindus around the world as greatest proponent andprotector of hindusim

respectively does not become a person who has read various Granthas.

I think your translation of "Yadaa Yadaahi Dharmasya.. "does not include

Abhutthana of the Dharma done by Adi Shankaracharya as to your view his

philosophy is different from yours..

 

Chandrashekhar.

-

Nomadeva Sharma

vedic astrology

Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:33 PM

RE: [vedic astrology] Re: To Chandrasekhar-jI

> > Chandrashekhar [boxdel (AT) (DOT) co.uk] >

Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:34 AM> vedic astrology>

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: ToChandrasekhar-jI (to Nomadeva)> > It was

also shocking to find that those swearing byVishnu and Krishna as personality

without reference to> the Parmatman within them, had not even read

theShrimadbhagavdgita in its entirety.It is unnecessary and superimposed

interpretation thatit is the Paramatma IN Krishna or Vishnu saying allthat. The

direct meaning has no 'bAdhaka'.> In Bhagvad Gita Adhyaya 10 Shloka 3 the Lord

tellsabout his true rupa.Again in shloka 12 the Lord tells > refers to Vishnu

to be Aaditya and says that I amVishnu amongst the Aadityas.> In Shloka 23 He

states that he is Shankara amongstRudras. In SDhloka31 He says that I am Rama

amongst > Armsbearers, and in Shloka 37 He says that I amVasudeva(Krishna)

amongst the Vrishni Tribe.He furthersays > that I am Dananjaya(Arjuna) amongst

Pandavas.He alsogoes on to describes his Animal Rupas and so on.> Now even

somebody not well versed in scriptures cantell by this that the Parmatman

himself is speaking to> Arjuna and not Krishna or Vishnu, which are butforms of

the Lord.The problem with such an interpretation is thatParamatma should then

have the forms of 'mArgashira'mAsa, sAmaveda, silence (yes, you have to take

itliterally), a chandas (!), the form of spring etc.Also, what about other

mAsas, other vedas, sounds,other metres, other seasons -- they are NOT forms

ofParamatma?A simpler explanation that is less overbearing onone's sense of

logic is that, if any speciality isseen in a certain class of objects, that

speciality isdue to Lord's vibhUti on/in that object or attribute. Btw, have

you heard about 'sajAtIya' and 'vijAtIya'concepts? If yes, there is some chance

of knowing howto interpret 'pANDAvAnAM dhananjayaH' or similar stuffvs

'AdityAnAmahaM viShNu' or 'vR^iShNInAM vAsudeva'.> Their inability to

understand the reference to"Vidyavinaysampanne..." clearly indicates that

theyhave > probably not studied this most divine of thescriptures in its

entirety. Otherwise they would have > understand its connection with Shloka 3

and 20 inAdhyaya 10 where the Lord repeats the same dictum forthe > benefit of

Arjuna.I am surprised that it did not strike you ascontradictory: If the Lord

is situated 'equally' inall beings, why should He say, now, that He is so &

soof a certain class.Regards,NomadevaDo you

?The New Search - Faster. Easier.

Bingo.http://search.Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......