[Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] our scriptures

[Guest guest]

I am not going to write on dasavathara as much water has gone under the bridge already and anything mor will only create a deluge (!)and also because Vinitha has requeted that this matter can come to a close. Irequest the moderators to look into this and not allow the same subject cropping up again and again.I went thro' the mail of agraman and krishnadasa.sreply to it and regarding this I would like to say a few words. Our Vedas Ithihaasaas and Puranas are to be treated neither as history nor as fiction. The reason is, the sages like Valmiki and Vyasa composed these lyrics as guidebooks of mankind. Actually the vedas are called Prabhu samhitha as they enjoin the 'do's and 'don'ts like a master, Prabhu, the command of whom has to be obeyed. The Ithihasas and Puranas are called Suhrtsamhitha as they, like a friend, tell us what is good and what is not in a mild manner as a well wisher in the form of stories. The Kavyas or lyrics are known as Kanthasamhitha because like a kantha or wife they give the ethics and lessons for life in a pleasing manner. You should remember that It was Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharatha and hence the Gita and not Krishna. So Vyasa put the teachings of the Gita as a

dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna. Perhaps what happened was just a look or few words from Krishna which would have put Arjuna's mind at rest. We study Gita for its contents and not for its context. Gita should be studied as a guide book for living and its concepts should be applied in life in order to gain wisdom and spiritual advancement, if you so aspire. After all God is true only for the one who believes. We find in our scriptures that few words said by the great sages give rise to voluminous commentaries like sankarabhashya and sribhashya for Brahma suthras. When you read Aesop's fables you don't ask whether a fox can talk but only try to understand the moral behind it. If Gita was a fiction why should there be so many commentaries by all sages, scholars and saints? Even the mythological stories like Dasavathara contain a lot of allegorical significance which should not be dismissed by treating them

as mere cock and bull stories or like fairytales.. Even an ordinary event that occurs in our everyday life can have deeper meaning if only you care to look for it. I never meant that the Gita is allegorical like the Panchathanthra. It is pure philosophy and the context can be construed so, for those who do not want to believe it as real. The essence of Upanishats were given out in a simpler manner for all to understand in Gita by Vyasa, who was also called Vedavyasa as he codified the vedas. As the Upanaishadic texts or vedantic texts of the vedas as they are known to be, render themselves for different interpretations by each school of philosophy the Gita was also commented upon by different thinkers in different manner. The absolute reality is one as God is one but different people understand it in different manner according to their ability and expectations. But the truth can never be understood but only experienced.

The Brahma saakshaatkara or realisaton of Brahman of the upanishads is said to be beyond the senses, mind and intellect . The acharyas due to kindness try to give some guidelines for the people who strive to get rid of this samsara which is sorow-ridden. Even in our worldly life if one is asked to describe his experience of pleasure or pain out of the same circumstance, each one will come out with his own interpretation and the reality can be understood only when experienced.. If only the realised masters shoul speak on this subject then we will not have so many books on spiritua matters.When one wants to learn about science for

instance he first learns the basics in primary school from the texts written to suit his level of understanding and progresses gradually to higher and higher texts. Similarly in spirituality also first the Gita is studied which is at the level of common man (who is interested in spirituality) and fromthat he graduates to the level of upanishads and Brhmasuthra the three of which are the prasthana thraya, three gospels for a hindu. Again all this is only for the believer. Qouting from the scriptures is also because we as ignorant samsaris have no authority to speak on spiritual matters and we need some valid source as a guide book. Even when one wants

to know about mundane things he approaches a guide book for reference.Just because they are in sanskritor any language you do not understand does not bann the validity of the texts and thereis nothing wrong in quoting from the scroptures provided ou give the translatio alongwith. After all in economics and other subjects we often have quotes in latin or french and no one objects to it because all try to understand ewhat that means and once you do that it becomes familiar. I have students who never knew one word of sanskrit but due to their constant exposure they can now quote from the upanishads. God is formless but you need some form for meditation and for that our religion has kindly supplied so many forms to suit the taste of each one. One may love all children but his son of daughter is more precious to him. Similarly one form of God is dear to the devotee of tht form. We all call ourselves devotees of Guruvayurappan and so cannot deny that His form is most appealing of all. Thatis because the form of Krishna is Anandhalahari, ocean of bliss, soundaryalahari, ocean of beauty and premalahari, ocean of love. Sankara the exponent of advaita has written sthothras on almost all forms of God and established the shanmatha system. Finally either you be a believrer or nonbeliever but you cannot be both. As the tamil poet Kanndasan has beautifully put it in one of his songs in a film, 'deivam enral adhu deivam verum silai enral adhu silaithan, ulladhenral adhu undu illai enral adhu illai.' Saroja Ramanujam May god bless you, Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit.

All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarojaji, THANKS for the timely intervention to put the topic under RIP. Very glad that you pointed that Sage Vyasa - who we call Vyasa roopaya Vishnu even in Vishnu Sahasra Namam - created Mahabharatham in which Geethopadesam is a part in it. As you have mentioned, let us study Geetha for its contents and not for its contexts. I will quote a line from a Tamil movie to conclude Mannikka manippanmai udavayan thaan manithan. Let us forget and forgive and continue our undivided attention to Lord Guruvayoorappan to me THE BIG G. I am sure everyone agree that this forum is dedicated to HIM. Ohm Narayanaya Namah Lokah Samastha Sukinoh bhavanthu. Chandra Sekharan Menon Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 wrote: I am not going to write on dasavathara as much water has gone under the bridge already and anything mor will only create a deluge (!)and also because Vinitha has requeted that this matter can come to

a close. Irequest the moderators to look into this and not allow the same subject cropping up again and again.I went thro' the mail of agraman and krishnadasa.sreply to it and regarding this I would like to say a few words. Our Vedas Ithihaasaas and Puranas are to be treated neither as history nor as fiction. The reason is, the sages like Valmiki and Vyasa composed these lyrics as guidebooks of mankind. Actually the vedas are called Prabhu samhitha as they enjoin the 'do's and 'don'ts like a master, Prabhu, the command of whom has to be obeyed. The Ithihasas

and Puranas are called Suhrtsamhitha as they, like a friend, tell us what is good and what is not in a mild manner as a well wisher in the form of stories. The Kavyas or lyrics are known as Kanthasamhitha because like a kantha or wife they give the ethics and lessons for life in a pleasing manner. You should remember that It was Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharatha and hence the Gita and not Krishna. So Vyasa put the teachings of the Gita as a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna. Perhaps what happened was just a look or few words from Krishna which would have put Arjuna's mind at rest. We study

Gita for its contents and not for its context. Gita should be studied as a guide book for living and its concepts should be applied in life in order to gain wisdom and spiritual advancement, if you so aspire. After all God is true only for the one who believes. We find in our scriptures that few words said by the great sages give rise to voluminous commentaries like sankarabhashya and sribhashya for Brahma suthras. When you read Aesop's fables you don't ask whether a fox can talk but only try to understand the moral behind it. If Gita was a fiction why should there be so many commentaries by all sages, scholars and saints? Even the mythological stories like Dasavathara contain a lot of allegorical significance which should not be dismissed by treating them as mere cock and bull stories or like fairytales.. Even an ordinary event that occurs in our everyday life can have deeper meaning if only you care to look for it.

I never meant that the Gita is allegorical like the Panchathanthra. It is pure philosophy and the context can be construed so, for those who do not want to believe it as real. The essence of Upanishats were given out in a simpler manner for all to understand in Gita by Vyasa, who was also called Vedavyasa as he codified the vedas. As the Upanaishadic texts or vedantic texts of the vedas as they are known to be, render

themselves for different interpretations by each school of philosophy the Gita was also commented upon by different thinkers in different manner. The absolute reality is one as God is one but different people understand it in different manner according to their ability and expectations. But the truth can never be understood but only experienced. The Brahma saakshaatkara or realisaton of Brahman of the upanishads is said to be beyond the senses, mind and intellect . The acharyas due to kindness try to give some guidelines for the people who strive to get rid of this samsara which is sorow-ridden. Even in our worldly life if one is asked to describe his experience of pleasure or pain out of the same circumstance, each one will come out with his own interpretation and the reality can be understood only when experienced.. If only the realised masters shoul speak on this subject then we will not have so many books on spiritua matters.When one wants to learn about science for instance he first learns the basics in primary school from the texts written to suit his level of understanding and progresses gradually to higher and higher texts. Similarly in spirituality also first the Gita is studied which is at the level of common man (who is interested in spirituality) and fromthat he graduates to the level of upanishads and Brhmasuthra the three of which are the prasthana thraya, three gospels for a hindu. Again all this is only for the believer. Qouting from the scriptures is also because we as ignorant samsaris have no authority to speak on spiritual matters and we need some valid source as a guide book. Even when one wants to know about mundane things he approaches a guide book for reference.Just because they are in sanskritor any language you do not understand does not bann the validity of the texts and thereis nothing wrong in quoting from the scroptures provided ou give the translatio alongwith. After all in economics and other subjects

we often have quotes in latin or french and no one objects to it because all try to understand ewhat that means and once you do that it becomes familiar. I have students who never knew one word of sanskrit but due to their constant exposure they can now quote from the upanishads. God is formless but you need some form for meditation and for that our religion has kindly

supplied so many forms to suit the taste of each one. One may love all children but his son of daughter is more precious to him. Similarly one form of God is dear to the devotee of tht form. We all call ourselves devotees of Guruvayurappan and so cannot deny that His form is most appealing of all. Thatis because the form of Krishna is Anandhalahari, ocean of bliss, soundaryalahari, ocean of beauty and premalahari, ocean of love. Sankara the exponent of advaita has written sthothras on almost all forms of God and established the shanmatha system. Finally either you be a believrer or nonbeliever but you cannot be both. As the tamil poet

Kanndasan has beautifully put it in one of his songs in a film, 'deivam enral adhu deivam verum silai enral adhu silaithan, ulladhenral adhu undu illai enral adhu illai.' Saroja Ramanujam May god bless you, Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.