To Chandrasekhar-jI

[Guest guest]

>

> Chandrashekhar [boxdel]

> Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:37 AM

 

Dear Shri Chandrasekhar-jI,

 

> Dear Nomadeva ,

> I do not understand the reason of your calling the

references in

> Purana that ar not

> supportive of your theory as Bogus, much less the

attack launched on PVR Narasimharaoji.

 

Two clarifications here.

One,

I did not say that Puranas not supportive of my theory

are bogus. I was saying that those quotes cannot be

wished away as interpolations. If you are referring to

the Upanishads stuff, note that I was even considering

even those upanishads that are supportive of the

system I follow as bogus. And there were reasons to

say that muktikA is bogus. It was not rejected on the

basis that it opposes my theory.

 

Two,

Do not consider this as an attack on anybody, much

less, PVR-jI. Doing so would be baseless; perhaps as

much as saying that PVR-jI was attacking Sri Gauranga

Das-jI and others.

 

> However since you take great pleasure in relegating

all gods other

> than Vishnu and Krishna to a secondary

> position and ask for original shlokas, I would like

you to give your meaning of the following shlokas in

> "Shrimadbhagavadgita" and what meaning should be

attributed to it. "Adhyaaya 3 shloka 14/15".

 

> Also since you treat Vishnu, Krishna and rama as

different entities,

> will you explain the meaning of

 

I don't know how you got this idea. I hold all these

to be the same. It appears that the mail hasn't been

read properly.

 

> I would also like to understand why you , on one

hand profess Vishnu

> and Krishna to be supreme and try not

> to understand what the Lord says in Adhyaaya5 Shloka

18, as it sums up the logic behind our argument that

> all Gods are Rupas of the same Paratman.

 

5.18:

vidyAvinayasampanne brAhmaNe gavi hastini |

shuni chaiva shvapAke cha paNDitAH samadarshinaH ||

 

Where does this say that all Gods are Rupas of

Paramatma? It says that Panditas should have

'sama-darshana' towards the entities mentioned over

there. And what exactly is this sama-darshana? To

understand that there is no difference in the

Paramatma who is situated in each of the different

entities. To assume that the Lord is expecting the

paNDita to consider every entity listed above to be of

equal inherent worth is wrong; in fact, no

commentator, including Shankaracharya, has said that.

Here's what he says:

 

uttamasaMskAravati brAhmaNe sAttvike, madhyamAyAM ca

rAjasyAM gavi, saMskArahInAyAm atyantameva

kevalatAmase hastyAdau ca, sattvAdiguNaiH tajjaishca

saMskAraiH tathA rAjasaiH tathA tAmasaishca saMskAraiH

atyantameva aspR^iShTaM samam ekam avikriyaM tat

brahma draShTuM shIlaM yeShAM te paNDitAH

samadarshinaH |

 

Thus even your school of thought says that a paNDita

sees the same Brahman everywhere.

 

Now, that has got nothing to do with 'All Gods are

rupas of same Paramatman'. Had they been so, they

wouldn't have flaws.

 

> I would definitely like to hear your logic behind

trying not to

> understand the meaning of this statement of the Lord

..

 

It is always easy to feel that way if somebody is not

concurring with your ideas.

 

> If I remember my religion right, only Lord Shiva is

called

> Bhootnath.Could you Quote where Vishnu is

> called SarvabhUaAnAmadhipatiH?

 

Multiple places. For one, check vanaparva of

Mahabharata:

 

sraShTAraM sarvabhUtAnAmasito devalo.abravIt.h

viShNus tvam asi durdharSa tvaM yaj~no madhusUdana

yaShTA tvamasi yaShTavyo jAmadagnyo yathAbravIt.h

...

IshastvaM sarvabhUtAnAM ye divyA ye ca mAnuShAH |

 

Anyway, you're mistaking the sanskrit word 'bhUta' to

Hindi word 'bhoot'. The former means 'beings', the

latter means 'ghost'. Shiva is called 'bhootnath'

because he is their Lord.

 

> Let me make it clear that I do not mean that Vishnu

or Krishna is

> lesser than Shiva or for that matter any of the Gods

as I believe that all

> gods are manifestation of the Superme that is the

Parmatman.

>

> Our Diety is Tirupati Baalaaji, lest you turn the

debate to Shaiva

> Vaishnava debate.

 

If you recollect, it was you who proposed that it was

Vaishnavas who wrote the stuff in Garuda Purana. My

mail never mentioned about any religious group;

instead gave the quotes. Please do not assume

anything.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

>

> Regards,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Nomadeva,

I think that you are retracting from your statement of having called scriptural

refernces as available as bogus on the one hand and are again calling

Upanishads as bogus on the other.

Your intent is clear from the way you have neatly sidestepped giving answer

about your meaning of Adhya3 Shloka 14 & 15. Should you not have it at hand I

give it below.

annadbhavanti bhUtaani parjanyaadnnsambhavaH.

yadhnaadbhvati parjanyo yadhnaH karmasamudbhavH.

karma branhodbhavaM viddhi brmhaakshrasamudbhavam.

tasmatsarvagataM bramha nityaM yadhne pratishThitam.

To which akshar and Bramha do you think the Lord is reffering here?

Either you are choosing to put the meaning that suits you or you are not able to

understand why I asked your opinion about the Shloka" Vidya vinay sampanne..."

The reason I asked is simple. If the Lord, when he explains about who attains or

to be more precise who is established in the Lord, tells arjuna in context of

the Lakshanas of a Pandita that a Knower of truth(the swarupa of Lord) views

even the Cow, WElephant , Dog etc. on equal level, the intent is clear, at

least to me.The Lord is trying to tell that he exists in everyone an all are

but his Rupa. Would such a Lord really mean to tell his followers that One God

is different and superior or inferior than other?

Again I do not understand how you say Bhootnath means lord of Bhootas as in

hindi. Bhoota in Bhootanath means the same Bhoota as in living beings.

Recently, on the list there is a post of His Holiness Chandrashekhar Saraswati

saying much the same as I am saying. I hope at least you do not question his

knowledge of scriptures as you are mine and everybody elses, who happens to

disagree with your theories including Upanishadkaras.

By the way you are commenting about Shrutis every now and then.Shruti is what

one has heard and since in Hindu's all scriptures were carried from one

generation to other by recitation, they are all shrutis. If you remember, in

Pujas some rituals are begun after the priest saying "Shruti-Smruti-PuraNokta",

indicating Puranas as distinct from other scriptures. Think about his while

saying that OPuranas were written at the time of Vedas or Upanishadas. It would

be better to find out whether Vedas and Upanishads were written when they

evolved, and why the Dharma is called Sanaatan.

Regards

Chandrashekhar.

-

Nomadeva Sharma

vedic astrology

Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:03 PM

RE: [vedic astrology] To Chandrasekhar-jI

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

Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:37 AMDear Shri Chandrasekhar-jI,> Dear

Nomadeva ,> I do not understand the reason of your calling thereferences in>

Purana that ar not> supportive of your theory as Bogus, much less theattack

launched on PVR Narasimharaoji.Two clarifications here. One, I did not say that

Puranas not supportive of my theoryare bogus. I was saying that those quotes

cannot bewished away as interpolations. If you are referring tothe Upanishads

stuff, note that I was even consideringeven those upanishads that are

supportive of thesystem I follow as bogus. And there were reasons tosay that

muktikA is bogus. It was not rejected on thebasis that it opposes my theory.

Two, Do not consider this as an attack on anybody, muchless, PVR-jI. Doing so

would be baseless; perhaps asmuch as saying that PVR-jI was attacking Sri

GaurangaDas-jI and others.> However since you take great pleasure in

relegatingall gods other> than Vishnu and Krishna to a secondary> position and

ask for original shlokas, I would likeyou to give your meaning of the following

shlokas in > "Shrimadbhagavadgita" and what meaning should beattributed to it.

"Adhyaaya 3 shloka 14/15".> Also since you treat Vishnu, Krishna and rama

asdifferent entities,> will you explain the meaning ofI don't know how you got

this idea. I hold all theseto be the same. It appears that the mail hasn't

beenread properly.> I would also like to understand why you , on onehand

profess Vishnu> and Krishna to be supreme and try not> to understand what the

Lord says in Adhyaaya5 Shloka18, as it sums up the logic behind our argument

that > all Gods are Rupas of the same Paratman.5.18: vidyAvinayasampanne

brAhmaNe gavi hastini |shuni chaiva shvapAke cha paNDitAH samadarshinaH ||

Where does this say that all Gods are Rupas ofParamatma? It says that Panditas

should have'sama-darshana' towards the entities mentioned overthere. And what

exactly is this sama-darshana? Tounderstand that there is no difference in

theParamatma who is situated in each of the differententities. To assume that

the Lord is expecting thepaNDita to consider every entity listed above to be

ofequal inherent worth is wrong; in fact, nocommentator, including

Shankaracharya, has said that.Here's what he says:uttamasaMskAravati brAhmaNe

sAttvike, madhyamAyAM carAjasyAM gavi, saMskArahInAyAm atyantamevakevalatAmase

hastyAdau ca, sattvAdiguNaiH tajjaishcasaMskAraiH tathA rAjasaiH tathA

tAmasaishca saMskAraiHatyantameva aspR^iShTaM samam ekam avikriyaM tatbrahma

draShTuM shIlaM yeShAM te paNDitAHsamadarshinaH |Thus even your school of

thought says that a paNDitasees the same Brahman everywhere.Now, that has got

nothing to do with 'All Gods arerupas of same Paramatman'. Had they been so,

theywouldn't have flaws.> I would definitely like to hear your logic

behindtrying not to> understand the meaning of this statement of the Lord.It is

always easy to feel that way if somebody is notconcurring with your ideas.> If I

remember my religion right, only Lord Shiva iscalled> Bhootnath.Could you Quote

where Vishnu is> called SarvabhUaAnAmadhipatiH?Multiple places. For one, check

vanaparva ofMahabharata:sraShTAraM sarvabhUtAnAmasito devalo.abravIt.hviShNus

tvam asi durdharSa tvaM yaj~no madhusUdanayaShTA tvamasi yaShTavyo jAmadagnyo

yathAbravIt.h..IshastvaM sarvabhUtAnAM ye divyA ye ca mAnuShAH |Anyway, you're

mistaking the sanskrit word 'bhUta' toHindi word 'bhoot'. The former means

'beings', thelatter means 'ghost'. Shiva is called 'bhootnath'because he is

their Lord.> Let me make it clear that I do not mean that Vishnuor Krishna is>

lesser than Shiva or for that matter any of the Godsas I believe that all >

gods are manifestation of the Superme that is theParmatman.> > Our Diety is

Tirupati Baalaaji, lest you turn thedebate to Shaiva> Vaishnava debate.If you

recollect, it was you who proposed that it wasVaishnavas who wrote the stuff in

Garuda Purana. Mymail never mentioned about any religious group;instead gave the

quotes. Please do not assumeanything.Regards,Nomadeva> > Regards,> >

Chandrashekhar.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 .......

 

[Guest guest]

>

> Chandrashekhar [boxdel]

> Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:22 AM

 

> Dear Nomadeva,

> I think that you are retracting from your statement

of having called

> scriptural refernces as available as bogus on the

one hand and are

> again calling Upanishads as bogus on the other.

 

Where in my mail have I said that Puranas are bogus?

If you are referring to PVR-jI's mail and my saying

some Puranas are tAmasic, then I'd like to highlight

the point I made in another reply. That some Puranas

are tAmasic is NOT my idea; it is there in the

Puranas. So, your charge that _I am_ dismissing such

puranas because they don't suit my thesis is baseless.

On the other hand, you or PVR-jI idea that such that

don't suit YOUR thesis are interpolations and,

thereby, bogus.

 

> Your intent is clear from the way you have neatly

sidestepped giving

> answer about your meaning of Adhya3 Shloka 14 & 15.

Should you not

> have it at hand I give it below.

 

> annadbhavanti bhUtaani parjanyaadnnsambhavaH.

> yadhnaadbhvati parjanyo yadhnaH karmasamudbhavH.

> karma branhodbhavaM viddhi brmhaakshrasamudbhavam.

tasmatsarvagataM

> bramha nityaM yadhne pratishThitam. To which akshar

and Bramha do you

> think the Lord is reffering here?

 

By brahma, the Lord is referring to the Brahman. By

axara, He is referring to the Vedas. The phrase

'brahma axarasamudbhavaM' is that 'brahman is known

only through the Axara, i.e. Vedas. It has absolutely

none of the stuff you speak.

 

> Either you are choosing to put the meaning that

suits you or you are

> not able to understand why I asked your opinion

about the Shloka"

> Vidya vinay sampanne..."

 

Chandrasekhar-jI, why don't you be direct instead of

giving hints at what you wish to drive at? It will

quicken the discussion, don't you think?

 

> The reason I asked is simple. If the Lord, when he

explains about who

> attains or to be more precise who is established in

the Lord, tells

> arjuna in context of the Lakshanas of a Pandita that

a Knower of

> truth(the swarupa of Lord) views even the Cow,

WElephant , Dog etc. on

> equal level, the intent is clear, at least to me.

 

PVR-jI has said that your point in asking for this

couplet of verses is the phrase 'sarvagataM brahma',

which is all-pervading. You have also said such a

thing. A point both of you have missed is that

all-pervasion does not imply identity of all (I will

come to the so-called mahAvAkyAs later). It will

render most of the Gita rather useless; like,

'matsthAni sarvabhUtAni na chAhaM teShvavasthitaH' or

'aprApya mAM nivartante mR^ityusaMsAravartmani' or

'yasmAtxaramatIto.ahamaxarAdapi chottamaH | ato.asmi

loke vede cha prathitaH puruShottamaH ||' or even the

first set of verses ' natvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM

neme janAdhipAH | na chaiva na bhaviShyAmaH sarve

vayamataH param.h' (because of the plural). If

absolute identity were to be the import of

all-pervasion, what then is the point of Krishna even

instructing Gita to Arjuna? If you were to blame it on

ignorance or mAyA or avidyA or whatever, how come it

doesn't hit you that Brahman, who is otherwise akhaNDa

(partless) has one part in ignorance and the other

part instructing the former? (Advaita will look like a

fairy tale if you analyse it, instead of learning it!)

 

> The Lord is trying to tell that he exists in

everyone an all are but

> his Rupa.

 

You are putting your words into the Lord's mouth. In

the verse under discussion, He simply says that He is

present equally in objects, even of those of unequal

worth. You are saying that everyone is his rUpa. If

everyone were his rUpa, what is the point in saying 'I

am present _in_ everything equally'? The very usage of

locative (or saptamI vibhakti) says that everyone is

NOT his rUpa. Secondly, if everything were His rUpa,

there will be no point in having the adjective

'equally'.

 

> Would such a Lord really mean to tell his followers

that One God is

> different and superior or inferior than other?

 

You are mixing too many issues here. The Lord ofcourse

tells us that He is the most superior to all other

beings. Refer to the 15th chapter, for a sample. He

also talks about worshippers of 'anya devatA' (Pls see

response to PVR-jI's mail).

 

> Again I do not understand how you say Bhootnath

means lord of Bhootas

> as in hindi. Bhoota in Bhootanath means the same

Bhoota as in living

> beings.

 

I cannot help you here. You need to find out the

origin of 'bhootnath' of Hindi. It is, in any case,

irrelevant to the discussion. You had asked for quotes

where Vishnu is called 'sarvabhUtAnAM adhipatiH' and

that was given (I had given one from anushAsana

parva).

 

> Recently, on the list there is a post of His

Holiness Chandrashekhar

> Saraswati saying much the same as I am saying. I

hope at least you do

> not question his knowledge of scriptures as you are

mine and everybody

> elses, who happens to disagree with your theories

including

> Upanishadkaras.

 

The problem is you are assuming that whole world

agrees with advaita and its proponents. It is not so.

The Upanishads are a far cry from advaita. There is

not a single mention of the 'nirguNa' concept (don’t

tell that Shvetashvatara uses the word, 'nirguNa'. It

uses that with a host of other adjectives).

 

Secondly, the swami you have mentioned represents a

certain tradition and it is a silly (and terribly

uninfomed) opinion to assume that his tradition

represents the Hindus. If you, in particular, think

so, I think you need a lot of reading up.

 

> By the way you are commenting about Shrutis every

now and then.Shruti

> is what one has heard and since in

> Hindu's all scriptures were carried from one

generation to other by recitation, they are all

shrutis. If you

> remember, in Pujas some rituals are begun after the

priest saying "Shruti-Smruti-PuraNokta", indicating

> Puranas as distinct from other scriptures. Think

about his while saying that OPuranas were written at

the

> time of Vedas or Upanishadas. It would be better to

find out whether Vedas and Upanishads were written

when

> they evolved, and why the Dharma is called Sanaatan.

 

Pls read my mail properly. I have distinguished

between Puranas and Vedas. The former are paurusheya

while the latter are not. Did your priest claim that

the order corresponds to the order in which these

texts were written down? If he says 'yes', ask him

about the mention of 'Purana' in Chandogya and

Brihadaranyaka Upanishads given earlier. Actually I

doubt if any vedantin worth his salt will take the

words, 'Vedas were written', without a hitch.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.