[vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a mAdhva

August 26, 1999

Hi Tandon,

Good to hear from you. You are right when you say He is known only

thro Agama.

The Parabrahma that Vedas and Upanishats talk about, as defined in

Yatovaa Imani ... of Taittareeya is the Vedic Vishnu which one can

understand only thro Shastra (ie. Brahma-Jignasaa in the form of

Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana). This Vedic Vishnu as defined by the

Upanishats does not have a body or form like we know.

" Yat tat adreshyam agraahyam .... achakshu Shrotram Apaani paadam

cha yat " -- Mundaka

" Tat etat.... Anirdeshyam Param Sukham " - Katha

There is nothing that we know which we can point to and say Parabrahman is

like this ( anirdeshyam)

Since I saw you in Jayatheertha Aradhane, if you recall the

Tattva-Prakaashika description

of this Vedic Vishnu as " Shuddhaa Nandoru Samvit dyuti bala bahula Oudaarya

veeryaadi deham... "

but the Vishnu of religion is known to us in one form or another. That is

why, Vishnu of religion is an

imagination where as the Vedic Vishnu is The Reality.

That is what I mean when I say the Author of Brahmasutras ( Vedavyaasa)

has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman is the same as the vedic

study of the vedic Vishnu and therefore Brahman and Vishnu ( not the Vishnu

of religion) have to be considered as synonyms.

In fact when Madhwa uses the term Vishnu in his Bhashya, he means

" Shrutyukta Brahma " and since we

are already familiar with the Vishnu of religion even before the

commencement of Shastra, we think it is

this Vishnu of religion that Madhwa is talking about. This is one of the

reasons why the Mastero is so mis-understood even today. That is why any

Shastraic terminology like Vishnu, Dvaita, Advaita, Brahma,

Shastra, Jignasaa etc have to be understood ONLY thro a study of

Shastra, otherwise we end up thinking that we have understood those terms

because they are familiar to us, coming from sources like upadesha, belief,

vernacular songs, etc which are opposed to Jignaasaa, and remember Srimad

Acharya has again and again stressed that it is ONLY through Jignasaa that

one can hope to understand the Vedic Vishnu.

" Jignaasoththa Jnanajaat Tat Prasaadaadeva Muchyate "

The Only way of attaining the highest good is thro the Prasaada of

Parabrahman resulting from Jnana

which is generated ONLY thro Jignaasaa.

" Yato Narayana prasaada Mrite Na Mokshaha Na cha Jnanam vinaa Athyartha

Prasaadaha

Ato Brahma Jignaasaa Kartavya "

Just as there is no Moskha without the releasing will of Narayana

(prasaada), so also there is no

Prasaada without Jnana and therefore Brahma-Jignasaa is indispensible.

Shrutvaa Matvaa Thathaa Dhyatvaa Tad Ajnana Viparyayou Samshayancha

Paraanudya

Labhate Brahma-Darshanam

Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhaysana i.e, by doing Satata-Nirantara

Brahma-Jignasaa, getting rid of all

all Ajnana, and having Nishchaya-Jnana ( without Samshayas) one gets

Brahma-Darshana.

I can go on and on...

I am very glad you asked this question. I hope I have clarified your

doubt.

Let me know if you need more clarifications on this point.

Harihi Om Tatsat,

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

Manish Tandon <matandon

vmsvolunteers <vmsvolunteers >

Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:10 PM

Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a mAdhva

>Manish Tandon <matandon

>

>Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>

>> Since the whole purpose of shastra is to find " The one principle behind

all "

>> ( Sarva Moola ), and that one

>> principle has been called Parabrahman by the Upanishads, and the author

of

>> the Brahma-Sutras has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman is

the

>> same as the vedic study of the vedic Vishnu and

>> therefore Brahman and Vishnu ( not the Vishnu of religion) have to be

>> considered as synonyms.

>

>I would like to know what is the difference between " vedic Vishnu " and

> " Vishnu of religion " . Unless by " Vishnu of religion " you mean the Vishnu

>misunderstood by common people, the difference appears spurious. In

>fact even than the treminology is misleading. Vishnu afterall is not known

>from pratyksha or anumaana. He is known only from agma and agma does

>not teach 2 Vishnu-s.

>

>regards,

>Manish

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist announces " FRIENDS & FAMILY! "

>For details, including our weekly drawing, go to

>/info/onereachsplash3.html

>

>------

--\

------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

--\

------

August 26, 1999

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

Jay Nelamangala <jay

vmsvolunteers <vmsvolunteers >

Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:59 PM

Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a mAdhva

>Hi Tandon,

>

>Refering to my email earlier, any shastraic word like Dharma which you

have

>used, has to again come

>from a study of Shastra. Normally what we call Dharma has come to us as a

> " belief " /Upadesha and such

>other sources which are not Brahma-Jignasaa. That is, we follow as

Dharma

>what has been told to us

>by our elders ( upadesha), that is precisely is what is termed as Religion

>in english ( ie., following what we have been told to with no questions

>asked ) but knowledge does not come in the form of Upadesha it comes in the

>form of Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana instead.

>

>In Geetha-Tatparya-Nirnaya Srimad Ananda Theertha has shown us the defn of

>Dharma as given by Krishna as,

>

> " Bhagavad Aradhanameva Paramo Dharmaha, Tat Viruddaha Sarvopi Adharmaha

> Bhagavat Adheenatvaat Sarvasya Iti Bodhayati Bhagavaan Narayanaha "

>

>If you need help with this translation let me know.

>

>Jayakrishna Nelamangala

>

>>> Shastraic terminology like Vishnu, Dvaita, Advaita, Brahma,

>>> Shastra, Jignasaa etc have to be understood ONLY thro a study of

>>> Shastra, otherwise we end up thinking that we have understood those

>terms

>---------

-

>----------

>RJAY Consultants Inc.,

>Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

>Email: jay

>---------

-

>----------

>

>Manish Tandon <matandon

>vmsvolunteers <vmsvolunteers >

>Wednesday, August 25, 1999 10:05 PM

>Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a mAdhva

>

>>Manish Tandon <matandon

>>

>>Hi Jay,

>>

>>Thanks for the clarification. I understand your position but I think the

>>phrase " Vishnu of religion " is somewhat confusing. A better way to put

>>it will be " Vishnu of common hindu's understanding " . Because most of

>>us think of " religion " as the same thing as " dharma " which is afterall a

>name

>>of Vishnu. So saying Vishnu of religion is different than the vedic

>>Vishnu may convey a different meaning than you what you want.

>>

>>regards,

>>Manish

>>

>>Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>>>

>>> " Jay Nelamangala " <jay

>>>

>>> Hi Tandon,

>>>

>>> Good to hear from you. You are right when you say He is known only

>>> thro Agama.

>>> The Parabrahma that Vedas and Upanishats talk about, as defined in

>>> Yatovaa Imani ... of Taittareeya is the Vedic Vishnu which one can

>>> understand only thro Shastra (ie. Brahma-Jignasaa in the form of

>>> Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana). This Vedic Vishnu as defined by the

>>> Upanishats does not have a body or form like we know.

>>> " Yat tat adreshyam agraahyam .... achakshu Shrotram Apaani

paadam

>>> cha yat " -- Mundaka

>>>

>>> " Tat etat.... Anirdeshyam Param Sukham " - Katha

>>>

>>> There is nothing that we know which we can point to and say

Parabrahman

>is

>>> like this ( anirdeshyam)

>>> Since I saw you in Jayatheertha Aradhane, if you recall the

>>> Tattva-Prakaashika description

>>> of this Vedic Vishnu as " Shuddhaa Nandoru Samvit dyuti bala bahula

>Oudaarya

>>> veeryaadi deham... "

>>> but the Vishnu of religion is known to us in one form or another. That

>is

>>> why, Vishnu of religion is an

>>> imagination where as the Vedic Vishnu is The Reality.

>>>

>>> That is what I mean when I say the Author of Brahmasutras

> Vedavyaasa)

>>> has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman is the same as the

>vedic

>>> study of the vedic Vishnu and therefore Brahman and Vishnu ( not the

>Vishnu

>>> of religion) have to be considered as synonyms.

>>>

>>> In fact when Madhwa uses the term Vishnu in his Bhashya, he means

>>> " Shrutyukta Brahma " and since we

>>> are already familiar with the Vishnu of religion even before the

>>> commencement of Shastra, we think it is

>>> this Vishnu of religion that Madhwa is talking about. This is one of

>the

>>> reasons why the Mastero is so mis-understood even today. That is why

>any

>>> Shastraic terminology like Vishnu, Dvaita, Advaita, Brahma,

>>> Shastra, Jignasaa etc have to be understood ONLY thro a study of

>>> Shastra, otherwise we end up thinking that we have understood those

>terms

>>> because they are familiar to us, coming from sources like upadesha,

>belief,

>>> vernacular songs, etc which are opposed to Jignaasaa, and remember

>Srimad

>>> Acharya has again and again stressed that it is ONLY through Jignasaa

>that

>>> one can hope to understand the Vedic Vishnu.

>>>

>>> " Jignaasoththa Jnanajaat Tat Prasaadaadeva Muchyate "

>>> The Only way of attaining the highest good is thro the Prasaada

>of

>>> Parabrahman resulting from Jnana

>>> which is generated ONLY thro Jignaasaa.

>>>

>>> " Yato Narayana prasaada Mrite Na Mokshaha Na cha Jnanam vinaa

>Athyartha

>>> Prasaadaha

>>> Ato Brahma Jignaasaa Kartavya "

>>> Just as there is no Moskha without the releasing will of Narayana

>>> (prasaada), so also there is no

>>> Prasaada without Jnana and therefore Brahma-Jignasaa is

>indispensible.

>>>

>>> Shrutvaa Matvaa Thathaa Dhyatvaa Tad Ajnana Viparyayou Samshayancha

>>> Paraanudya

>>> Labhate Brahma-Darshanam

>>> Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhaysana i.e, by doing Satata-Nirantara

>>> Brahma-Jignasaa, getting rid of all

>>> all Ajnana, and having Nishchaya-Jnana ( without Samshayas) one

gets

>>> Brahma-Darshana.

>>>

>>> I can go on and on...

>>>

>>> I am very glad you asked this question. I hope I have clarified

>your

>>> doubt.

>>> Let me know if you need more clarifications on this point.

>>>

>>> Harihi Om Tatsat,

>>>

>>> Jayakrishna Nelamangala

>>> ------

-

>---

>>> ----------

>>> RJAY Consultants Inc.,

>>> Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

>>> Email: jay

>>> ------

-

>---

>>> ----------

>>>

>>> Manish Tandon <matandon

>>> vmsvolunteers <vmsvolunteers >

>>> Wednesday, August 25, 1999 6:10 PM

>>> Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a mAdhva

>>>

>>> >Manish Tandon <matandon

>>> >

>>> >Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>>> >

>>> >> Since the whole purpose of shastra is to find " The one principle

>behind

>>> all "

>>> >> ( Sarva Moola ), and that one

>>> >> principle has been called Parabrahman by the Upanishads, and the

>author

>>> of

>>> >> the Brahma-Sutras has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman

>is

>>> the

>>> >> same as the vedic study of the vedic Vishnu and

>>> >> therefore Brahman and Vishnu ( not the Vishnu of religion) have to

be

>>> >> considered as synonyms.

>>> >

>>> >I would like to know what is the difference between " vedic Vishnu " and

>>> > " Vishnu of religion " . Unless by " Vishnu of religion " you mean the

Vishnu

>>> >misunderstood by common people, the difference appears spurious. In

>>> >fact even than the treminology is misleading. Vishnu afterall is not

>known

>>> >from pratyksha or anumaana. He is known only from agma and agma does

>>> >not teach 2 Vishnu-s.

>>> >

>>> >regards,

>>> >Manish

>>

>>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>>

>>ONElist members, don't miss out on the latest news at ONElist!

>>Join our community member news update

>><a href= " //onelist_announce " here</A>

>>

>>------

>

August 28, 1999

Dear friends,

The following posting seems to give a slight mental difficulty

as it is worded. I would like the author to try to clarify the

following points:

> Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> You are right when you say He is known only thro Agama.

> The Parabrahma that Vedas and Upanishats talk about, as

> defined in Yatovaa Imani ... of Taittareeya is the Vedic Vishnu which

> one can understand only thro Shastra (ie. Brahma-Jignasaa in the form

> of Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana). This Vedic Vishnu as defined

> by the Upanishats does not have a body or form like we know.

> There is nothing that we know which we can point to and say

> Parabrahman is like this ( anirdeshyam)

> Since I saw you in Jayatheertha Aradhane, if you recall the

> Tattva-Prakaashika description of this Vedic Vishnu as " Shuddhaa > Nandoru

Samvit dyuti bala bahula Oudaarya

> veeryaadi deham... "

> but the Vishnu of religion is known to us in one form or

> another. That is why, Vishnu of religion is an

> imagination where as the Vedic Vishnu is The Reality.

Q. 1 How is the Vishnu of religion known? Why is He called

imaginary?

> That is what I mean when I say the Author of Brahmasutras

> ( Vedavyaasa)

> has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman is the

> same as the vedic

> study of the vedic Vishnu and therefore Brahman and Vishnu (

> not the Vishnu

> of religion) have to be considered as synonyms.

> In fact when Madhwa uses the term Vishnu in his Bhashya, he

> means " Shrutyukta Brahma " and since we

> are already familiar with the Vishnu of religion even before

> the commencement of Shastra, we think it is

> this Vishnu of religion that Madhwa is talking about. This

> is one of the reasons why the Mastero is so mis-understoodeven today.

> That is why any > Shastraic terminology like Vishnu, Dvaita, Advaita, >

Brahma, Shastra, Jignasaa etc have to be understood ONLY thro a

> study of Shastra, otherwise we end up thinking that we have

> understood those terms

> because they are familiar to us, coming from sources like

> upadesha, belief,

> vernacular songs, etc which are opposed to Jignaasaa, and

> remember Srimad

> Acharya has again and again stressed that it is ONLY through

> Jignasaa that

> one can hope to understand the Vedic Vishnu.

Q 2. Why is Upadesha opposed to Jijnasa ?

Q 3. Why is it said " vernacular " songs are opposed to Jijnasa?

> " Jignaasoththa Jnanajaat Tat Prasaadaadeva Muchyate "

> The Only way of attaining the highest good is thro the

> Prasaada of

> Parabrahman resulting from Jnana

> which is generated ONLY thro Jignaasaa.

>

> " Yato Narayana prasaada Mrite Na Mokshaha Na cha Jnanam

> vinaa Athyartha

> Prasaadaha

> Ato Brahma Jignaasaa Kartavya "

> Just as there is no Moskha without the releasing will of

> Narayana

> (prasaada), so also there is no

> Prasaada without Jnana and therefore Brahma-Jignasaa is

> indispensible.

>

> Shrutvaa Matvaa Thathaa Dhyatvaa Tad Ajnana Viparyayou

> Samshayancha

> Paraanudya

> Labhate Brahma-Darshanam

> Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhaysana i.e, by doing

> Satata-Nirantara

> Brahma-Jignasaa, getting rid of all

> all Ajnana, and having Nishchaya-Jnana ( without

> Samshayas) one gets

> Brahma-Darshana.

>

> I can go on and on...

General comments : To my knowledge, no Haridasa of the

fraternity which are well known has said any thing that is not

according to the Shruthis and Thathvavada. This argument seems

like a repeat of the old Vyasa Koota and dasa Koota arguments.

As a serious student of Thathvavada, I have been told again and

again in many contexts that Vishnu as discussed with the

appellation Brahma in the Suthras and Upanishaths, The Lord

Krishna with whom most of are familiar from the Geetha and

Bhagavatha, The Beautiful Ramachandra of Ramayana are all the

same - " Neha Nanasthi kinchana " . So long as one understands

these authoritative texts correctly, there is no scope for the

Imaginary Vishnu of religion and True Vishnu/Brahma of

Upanishaths - being different.

> I am very glad you asked this question. I hope I have

> clarified your

> doubt.

> Let me know if you need more clarifications on this point.

>

> Harihi Om Tatsat,

Hope to get a reply at your earlest convenience.

NAPSRao

August 29, 1999

Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> The Parabrahma that Vedas and Upanishats talk about, as

>defined in Yatovaa Imani ... of Taittareeya is the Vedic Vishnu which

>one can understand only thro Shastra (ie. Brahma-Jignasaa in the form

>of Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana). This Vedic Vishnu as defined

>by the Upanishats does not have a body or form like we know.

>There is nothing that we know which we can point to and say

>Parabrahman is like this ( anirdeshyam)

Your understanding of `anirdeshyaM' is just the same as the Advaitin's

understanding of `nirguNatva'. If that is the case, why would Sri

Jayatiirtha say `na anirdhAritasvarUpasya vandanaM yuktaM na cha laxaNena

vinA nirdhAraNaM', etc.? The Vishnu that Sri Madhva salutes at the

commencement of the 'tattva-nirNaya must be the " Vishnu of religion " rather

than the " Vedic Vishnu. " One concludes therefore that the distinction

between the " Vedic Vishnu " and the " Vishnu of religion " is lost on Sri

Jayatiirtha, and also on Sri Madhva.

>Since I saw you in Jayatheertha Aradhane, if you recall the

>Tattva-Prakaashika description of this Vedic Vishnu as " Shuddhaa > Nandoru

>Samvit dyuti bala bahula Oudaarya

>veeryaadi deham... "

>but the Vishnu of religion is known to us in one form or

>another. That is why, Vishnu of religion is an

>imagination where as the Vedic Vishnu is The Reality.

You're treading a dangerous road there; it is highly improper to attempt to

see differences between forms of Vishnu -- `mR^ityoH sa mR^ityumApnoti ya

iha nAneva pashyati'.

>Q. 1 How is the Vishnu of religion known? Why is He called

>imaginary?

> That is what I mean when I say the Author of Brahmasutras

>( Vedavyaasa)

>has shown that the vedic study of the vedic brahman is the

>same as the vedic

>study of the vedic Vishnu and therefore Brahman and Vishnu (

>not the Vishnu

>of religion) have to be considered as synonyms.

Could you state in strictly etymological terms why `Vishnu' and `Brahman'

are synonyms? Your argument is unclear.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

August 30, 1999

Dear NAPS Rao,

>to say that just blind faith and listening without querying the

>validity of what is heard and without trying to realise the

>truth through your sakshi by meditation etc is not adequate - I

>am with you. But, your first posting did not give me that

>impression.

Thanks again for replying. Now that you know what I mean when I say

religion ( Mooda Bhakti, blind faith)

will you please suggest a correct word in english which I need to use to

express what I want to express,

so that there won't be any confusion in future. Ideas are infinite in

number and they have to be expressed in a finite number of words. So,

there will be some confusion as to the nomenclature.

>readers of the Mail rather than scoring a point or two. I must

>confess that like the Upanishath says - we are all like the

>blind one leading other blind and thus not free from proneness

>to error. I hope you will take my suggestions in that spirit.

Sure, I am with you 100 % on this. As long as we keep discussions impersonal,

everybody is benefitted from it.

There is absolutely no difference bewteen the

>different forms of Vishnu , even His limbs and all of them are

>composed of Bliss and other auspicious qualities. When you try

>to make a distinction of Vishnu of religion who is imaginary

>with that of Upanishaths, which is real and also talk of Acharya

Here again, you have taken the avataaras of Vishnu as my meaning of " Vishnu

of religion " and that is NOT

what I am talking about. ( please suggest a better word in english than

" religion " that would make more sense. You and one Mr. Shrisha Rao have

both understood it as avataaras of Vishnu, so please read carefully ). The

" Vishnu of Religion " that I am talking about is the following:

- the God that gets hungry and comes in a Bhakta's dream and requests him

that food be given to him

- the God that gets angry if you don't

- the God that has friends and enemies

- the God that does not know about your troubles unless you go and tell him

- the God that has to take others' help in solving your problems

etc etc. Where is the Svatantra, SarvaShakta, Sarvaantaryami,

SarvaKartr, Parabrahman that Srimad

Acharya is after?.

What I would like to know from you and Mr. Shrisha rao is that why are you

guys talking about Avataaras

of Vishnu, Saguna and Nirguna Brahman of Advaita etc ?

Jayakrishna

--\

------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

--\

------

August 30, 1999

Hello Shrisha Rao,

>Your understanding of `anirdeshyaM' is just the same as the Advaitin's

>understanding of `nirguNatva'.

I wish you had instead said, " My understanding of your understanding ..... "

in any case, here is what I understand by " Anirdeshyam " -- for me

Anirdeshyam is same as " Na Asti Akritaha Kritena " . So,

we can not point to " anything " which is Paramaatma Nirmita and say

Paramaatma is like that.

Explain where Advaita comes in here?

Jayakrishna

--\

------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

--\

------

August 30, 1999

Dear NAPS Rao,

I am glad you replied to my earlier posting. The clarification comes from

our understanding of the english

term " religion " . Minutes back I replied to one Shrisha Rao's posting, I

hope that answers your Q1.

As I have asked him, I will ask you the same question what is your

understanding of the english word

" Religion " , I will explain

>Q 2. Why is Upadesha opposed to Jijnasa ?

" Tapasaa Brahma Vijignaasasva " , " Yadi Manyase Suvedaa...Mimamsyameva

the " , etc

tell us that the student is asked to conduct enquiry or Jignasaa which is

Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyaasana roopa. Otherwise the teacher could have

spoon-fed instead of making the student " grow " through

Adhyatma Tapas which would have been " Upadesha " . I hope this answers Q2.

>Q 3. Why is it said " vernacular " songs are opposed to Jijnasa?

For the same reason as Q2, and my definition of " religion " .

As Srimad Acharya says, " Shabda Jaatasya Sarvasya Yat Pramanscha

Vinirnayaha " - any thing of a nature of sound should get its validity from

the Brahma-Sutras, that would include Vernacular Songs, would

it not?.

As long as those songs are made part of shastra " yes

To my knowledge, no Haridasa of the

>fraternity which are well known has said any thing that is not

>according to the Shruthis and Thathvavada

I am not saying Haridaasas are opposed to Jignaasaa. But if it tends to

make " Vidyaagum Rataaha "

then we have a problem. Again please refer to my reply to Shrisha Rao.

This argument seems

>like a repeat of the old Vyasa Koota and dasa Koota arguments

I do not know any Kootas of old times. I am not that old you know :-)

What I do know is that Vyasatheertha himself has done many vernacular

songs. So, how can anybody

categorically say the two Kootas are talking different things. As students

of Shastra we are after correct

knowledge. If it comes thro vernacular songs so be it.

same - " Neha Nanasthi kinchana " . So long as one understands

>these authoritative texts correctly, there is no scope for the

>Imaginary Vishnu of religion and True Vishnu/Brahma of

>Upanishaths - being different.

Again I do understand very well that there is no difference among Paramatma

Avataara Roopas, the point

is our definition of " religion " . To me " religion " is simply

mooda-bhakti. I hope you re-read my earlier

posting with these clarifications.

Let me know if I am wrong. I am always here to learn.

Jayakrishna

--\

------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

--\

------

August 30, 1999

Hello Shrisha Rao,

Thanks for the reply. Looks like the english word " Religion " is what is

giving rise to all this confusion.

To me " Religion " is something you follow without asking questions,

blind-faith in other words.

Now when I say " Vishnu of Religion " and " Vedic Vishnu " - " Anirdeshyam

Param Sukham " I am

not saying Nirgunatva, what I am saying is the following: ( I hope I can

express it correctly in english ):

When we blindly believe in something, it is obvious that do not know about

it. However, we think we know about it because we are " familiar " with the

terminology. So, this belief that we have understood, makes

one " Vidyaagum Rataaha " which will cause greater tamas than the one who is

in ignorance and knows he is ignorant thus giving himself a chance to learn.

So, when I say " Vishnu of Religion " I am talking about

the former case ( i.e., the one who is in the Vidyaagum Rataaha state).

Now, before answering other questions, I would like to know your

definition of " Religion " that way we can

understand each other better.

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

--\

------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

--\

------

August 30, 1999

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> Dear NAPS Rao,

>

> >Q 2. Why is Upadesha opposed to Jijnasa ?

>

> " Tapasaa Brahma Vijignaasasva " , " Yadi Manyase

> Suvedaa...Mimamsyameva

> the " , etc

> tell us that the student is asked to conduct

> enquiry or Jignasaa which is

> Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyaasana roopa. Otherwise

> the teacher could have

> spoon-fed instead of making the student " grow "

> through

> Adhyatma Tapas which would have been " Upadesha " . I

> hope this answers Q2.

>

It is still not clear to me why " Upadesha " is

opposed to Jignaasa. Why can't an upadesha be such

that it itself makes further jignasa possible? We also

see in BG 'upadExanti te GYAna.m GYAninaH tattva

darshinaH' showing the possibility of upadesha by a

guru. Again, before going further I think it would be

better to understand what Upadesha means according to

you. I take upadesha to mean any gnana that a guru

gives to his shishya. Please clarify.

regards,

raghav

===

***********************************************************

Raghavendra Rao Rachuri

rrachuri

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2432/

H:301 871 4948

W:301 589 6300X247

***********************************************************

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

August 31, 1999

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Hello Shrisha Rao,

>

> Thanks for the reply. Looks like the english word " Religion " is

> what is

> giving rise to all this confusion.

> To me " Religion " is something you follow without asking questions,

> blind-faith in other words.

> Now when I say " Vishnu of Religion " and " Vedic Vishnu " -

> " Anirdeshyam

> Param Sukham " I am

> not saying Nirgunatva, what I am saying is the following: ( I hope I

> can

> express it correctly in english ):

>

> When we blindly believe in something, it is obvious that do not know

> about

> it. However, we think we know about it because we are " familiar "

> with the

> terminology. So, this belief that we have understood, makes

> one " Vidyaagum Rataaha " which will cause greater tamas than the one

> who is

> in ignorance and knows he is ignorant thus giving himself a chance to

> learn.

> So, when I say " Vishnu of Religion " I am talking about

> the former case ( i.e., the one who is in the Vidyaagum Rataaha

> state).

>

> Now, before answering other questions, I would like to know your

> definition of " Religion " that way we can

> understand each other better.

>

> Jayakrishna Nelamangala

JayakrishNa,

I also thought that you were referring to " nirguNa " brahma in your

earlier statements.

My understanding of " VishNu of religion " is the vishNu referred to

bhagavatha and other

purANas, one with form and who does all the things mentioned in those

purANas. Srimadacharya's mahAbhAratha Tatparya nirNaya (MBTN) and other

works show clearly

that " vishNu of religion " or one with form and associated with the

mahAbharatha, rAmAyana and bhAgavatha is the same as the vishNu or

brahman referred in vedAs and upanishads.

Your latter statements clarify the matter. Your example of a God who

gets angry when you don't do certain things is a good one. I think a

prime example happens in the popular " SathyanArAyaNa vratha katha " .

vishNu described there appears to be " vindictive " and given to frequent

" anger " . These are not the qualities that are present in a person with

" nirdoshatva " or person without any faults. I remember that this

question was asked in the first bhakta sammeLana in Pittsburgh. We

should explain that these are explanations given to explain the behavior

in a easy to understand fashion. God is not becoming " angry " , but bad

actions get bad results due to the law of Karma. Without these kinds

of explanations, " SathyanArAyaNa vratha katha " becomes hard to reconcile

with philosophical definitions of " vishNu " . I think this is what you are

referring to. But purANas like bhagavatha, mahAbharatha and RamAyaNa

with srimadAcharya's commentary and explanations do not fall under that

category.

Hare srinivasa,

Vasu

--

=================================

Vasu Murthy

Bell Atlantic Global Networks

web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy

vmurthy

W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359

==================================

August 31, 1999

Hi Vasu,

Thanks for the clarifications. Now that we all know what I mean by

Religion, I am still looking

for the proper word in english to describe what I want to say. For me

blind faith has been always " Religion " , and Vedavyasa Krita Bhagavata,

Puraana, Mh. bharata and other smrithis were part of Shastra. Since the

upanishats have called Vedas themselves as Aparaa vidya, I do not have to

be specific in saying that these Smrithis which have come about for

Veda-pratipaadana ( what is the

correct english word here? ) are also Aparaa vidyas, and Paraa vidya is

again Baadaraayana Krita

Brahma-Sutras. All the vedas, and puranas have to be interpreted in the

light of the Brahma-Sutras

and then only they will lead us to the highest good. ( Aksharatva,

Amritatva). This is what is called

Samanvaya in Shastra.

Vasu, I hope this clarifies your question on reconcilation when you say

>becomes hard to reconcile with philosophical definitions of " vishNu " .

So when people started talking about Vishnu Roopas, avataaras, Nirguna

Brahman of Advaita etc

I was kind of wondering why everybody was going off on a tangent. Then I

found that the term Religion

as I understood is different from what others understood. So, if any one

out there, suggest a better

word which represents my position, then I will drop the word Religion and

start using that word. After all

it is the ideas that are behind the words that are important, not words

themselves.

If you think the word Religion represents Dharma, ( as in Hindu Dharma -

Hindu Religion) then you can see my email to Manish Tandon on Dharma.

If you think the word Religion represents what is in Puraanas then refer

to Para 1. here.

If you think the word Religion represents " blind faith " , then go back and

re-read all my earlier emails since

that was the meaning I always had in mind when I used the word " Religion " .

I hope this clarifies everything.

Harihi Om,

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

Vasu Murthy <vmurthy

Jay Nelamangala <jay

Cc: < >

Monday, August 30, 1999 7:01 PM

Re: Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a

mAdhva

>Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>

>> Hello Shrisha Rao,

>>

>> Thanks for the reply. Looks like the english word " Religion " is

>> what is

>> giving rise to all this confusion.

>> To me " Religion " is something you follow without asking questions,

>> blind-faith in other words.

>> Now when I say " Vishnu of Religion " and " Vedic Vishnu " -

>> " Anirdeshyam

>> Param Sukham " I am

>> not saying Nirgunatva, what I am saying is the following: ( I hope I

>> can

>> express it correctly in english ):

>>

>> When we blindly believe in something, it is obvious that do not know

>> about

>> it. However, we think we know about it because we are " familiar "

>> with the

>> terminology. So, this belief that we have understood, makes

>> one " Vidyaagum Rataaha " which will cause greater tamas than the one

>> who is

>> in ignorance and knows he is ignorant thus giving himself a chance to

>> learn.

>> So, when I say " Vishnu of Religion " I am talking about

>> the former case ( i.e., the one who is in the Vidyaagum Rataaha

>> state).

>>

>> Now, before answering other questions, I would like to know your

>> definition of " Religion " that way we can

>> understand each other better.

>>

>> Jayakrishna Nelamangala

>

>JayakrishNa,

> I also thought that you were referring to " nirguNa " brahma in your

>earlier statements.

>My understanding of " VishNu of religion " is the vishNu referred to

>bhagavatha and other

>purANas, one with form and who does all the things mentioned in those

>purANas. Srimadacharya's mahAbhAratha Tatparya nirNaya (MBTN) and other

>works show clearly

>that " vishNu of religion " or one with form and associated with the

>mahAbharatha, rAmAyana and bhAgavatha is the same as the vishNu or

>brahman referred in vedAs and upanishads.

>

> Your latter statements clarify the matter. Your example of a God who

>gets angry when you don't do certain things is a good one. I think a

>prime example happens in the popular " SathyanArAyaNa vratha katha " .

>vishNu described there appears to be " vindictive " and given to frequent

> " anger " . These are not the qualities that are present in a person with

> " nirdoshatva " or person without any faults. I remember that this

>question was asked in the first bhakta sammeLana in Pittsburgh. We

>should explain that these are explanations given to explain the behavior

>in a easy to understand fashion. God is not becoming " angry " , but bad

>actions get bad results due to the law of Karma. Without these kinds

>of explanations, " SathyanArAyaNa vratha katha " becomes hard to reconcile

>with philosophical definitions of " vishNu " . I think this is what you are

>referring to. But purANas like bhagavatha, mahAbharatha and RamAyaNa

>with srimadAcharya's commentary and explanations do not fall under that

>category.

>

>Hare srinivasa,

> Vasu

>

>--

>=================================

>Vasu Murthy

>Bell Atlantic Global Networks

>web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy

>vmurthy

>W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359

>==================================

>

August 31, 1999

Dear Mr. Jay N.

Thanks for every thing. I feel that the matter needs no further

clarification, at least as far as I am concerned.

To try to express your thoughts in English, I would like to

quote some beautiful verses of Acharya Madhva : Mahabharatha

Thathparya Nirnaya

Chapter II shlokas 72 to 86 (simple translation and summary)

After one deeply studies all the Shasthras and ponders over them

again and again, this one thing is established - Narayana is to

be contemplated always.

Vishnu must be remembered always and must never be forgotten

under any circumstances. All rules of doing and not doing are

subject to this (overriding) rule.

Who else (like Brahma etc) without being like Him can possibly

understand Him? There is none other like Him. He alone

understands Himself (fully). Who is capable of understanding

Narayana, who has no blemish, excepting Krishna (Vyasa) who is

the son of Devaki (Sathyavathi).

He is imponderable and not subject to any control. He (alone) is

independent. can go where He likes. He controls all entities and

plays with the other elements, just as a child would, with its

playthings.

It is impossible to understand (fully) this Madhusudana of long

arms. There is none superior to this Supreme Lord, whose form is

(pervades) the entire Universe.

He is not the son of Vasudeva. This Lord never lived in the

womb. He was not begotten by Dasharatha or Jamadagni.

He is never born through any one. How can it be said that He

died? He can not be killed; and is never under any delusion nor

can be bound by any body under any circumstances; how can there

be misery to one who is independent and whose form is eternal

bliss?

Though this Hari is the Lord of the devas and controls the

entire Universe, still he acts like the feeble farmer.

With clouded mind, He (pretends) not to know Himself. He

searches for Seetha. He was bound by Indrajit. All this and more

is His play for deluding the Asuras.

He becomes senseless by blows from weapons. He has His skin cut

and blood flows. Not knowing Himself, He asks others. Leaving

His body , He departed for heaven.

Harikathamruthasara - Obbanali ninthaaduvanu .... etc.

The Lord played all this through (which does not really exist)

as if He were an actor, for the delusion of the asuras. The

Devas knew this to be false.

All manifestations of Hari are never made of physical bodies. On

the other hand they are without blemish and also full of

auspicious attributes. But He displays otherwise, indeed some

times for the delusion of the wicked ad occasionally for good

people also, for meting their proper deserts. This is play of

the Supreme Lord.

I believe that it is really difficult to express one self in an

alien langauge like english on subjects like the one under

discussion. Perhaps the word religion can be substituted by the

words _ popular superficial understanding of epic stories.

I would also suggest repectfully that we should avoid repeating

" popular " concepts like Acharya Madhva being misunderstood ,

Advaita - Dvaita etc being essentially different facets of the

same underlying truths etc, They are simply not true. In

particular, as I had said before, we should not imply even

covertly, differences in the forms of Hari or any such cardinal

tenets. Trying to find common ground between Vedanta schools

either in theology or philosophy is totally useless as they are

different from each other like chalk and cheese as the

expression goes.

NAPSRao

August 31, 1999

Raghavendra Rachuri <rrachuri wrote:

> It is still not clear to me why " Upadesha " is

>opposed to Jignaasa.

It clearly is not, notwithstanding all the gobbledygook on the subject: the

first sUtra is `OM athAto brahmajij~nAsA OM', and the seventh one is `OM

tannishhThasya moxopadeshAt.h OM'. The inference is that one is to conduct

`brahma-jij~nAsA' because, among other things, that would lead to one

receiving upadeshA leading to mukti.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

>raghav

August 31, 1999

Hi NAPS Rao,

Now I can see some Good coming out of all this. Thanks for posting

translation of Mh. B. Nirnaya.

As Srimad Acharya says,

" Alodya Sarva Shastraani Vicharicha Punah Punaha Idamekam Sunishpannam

Dhyeyo Narayanah Sadaa "

>Advaita - Dvaita etc being essentially different facets of the

>same underlying truths etc, They are simply not true.

" Kinchit Tat Anyathaa Jnatam, Kin tena Na kritam Paapam Chorena

Ishaapahaarinaa. " - Srimad Acharya

summarizing those schools.

>I would also suggest repectfully that we should avoid repeating

> " popular " concepts like Acharya Madhva being misunderstood

I was refering to mainly academicians who think Indian Philosophy stops at

Shankara and Ramanuja. I think it is so, because they have misunderstood

Madhwa making him to be a leader of some Vaishnava

cult, thus loosing all the philosophical acumen that Srimad Acharya has

got.

>Trying to find common ground between Vedanta schools

>either in theology or philosophy is totally useless as they are

>different from each other like chalk and cheese as the

>expression goes.

In the end, there is only one Siddantha, as vadiraja puts it " Ante

Siddyastru Siddanthah " .

Recently I spoke on " The role of Poorvapaksha in Brahma-Mimamsa Shastra "

during the Jayatheertha

Aradhane in Allentown PA, and showed the position of each school of thought

as relating to Madhwa

Shastra.

Harihi Om Tatsat,

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

napsrao <napsrao

Jay Nelamangala <jay

Cc: vmurthy <vmurthy;

< >

Monday, August 30, 1999 10:03 PM

Re: Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a

mAdhva

>Dear Mr. Jay N.

>Thanks for every thing. I feel that the matter needs no further

>clarification, at least as far as I am concerned.

>To try to express your thoughts in English, I would like to

>quote some beautiful verses of Acharya Madhva : Mahabharatha

>Thathparya Nirnaya

>Chapter II shlokas 72 to 86 (simple translation and summary)

>After one deeply studies all the Shasthras and ponders over them

>again and again, this one thing is established - Narayana is to

>be contemplated always.

>Vishnu must be remembered always and must never be forgotten

>under any circumstances. All rules of doing and not doing are

>subject to this (overriding) rule.

>Who else (like Brahma etc) without being like Him can possibly

>understand Him? There is none other like Him. He alone

>understands Himself (fully). Who is capable of understanding

>Narayana, who has no blemish, excepting Krishna (Vyasa) who is

>the son of Devaki (Sathyavathi).

>He is imponderable and not subject to any control. He (alone) is

>independent. can go where He likes. He controls all entities and

>plays with the other elements, just as a child would, with its

>playthings.

>It is impossible to understand (fully) this Madhusudana of long

>arms. There is none superior to this Supreme Lord, whose form is

>(pervades) the entire Universe.

>He is not the son of Vasudeva. This Lord never lived in the

>womb. He was not begotten by Dasharatha or Jamadagni.

>He is never born through any one. How can it be said that He

>died? He can not be killed; and is never under any delusion nor

>can be bound by any body under any circumstances; how can there

>be misery to one who is independent and whose form is eternal

>bliss?

>Though this Hari is the Lord of the devas and controls the

>entire Universe, still he acts like the feeble farmer.

>With clouded mind, He (pretends) not to know Himself. He

>searches for Seetha. He was bound by Indrajit. All this and more

>is His play for deluding the Asuras.

>He becomes senseless by blows from weapons. He has His skin cut

>and blood flows. Not knowing Himself, He asks others. Leaving

>His body , He departed for heaven.

>Harikathamruthasara - Obbanali ninthaaduvanu .... etc.

>The Lord played all this through (which does not really exist)

>as if He were an actor, for the delusion of the asuras. The

>Devas knew this to be false.

>All manifestations of Hari are never made of physical bodies. On

>the other hand they are without blemish and also full of

>auspicious attributes. But He displays otherwise, indeed some

>times for the delusion of the wicked ad occasionally for good

>people also, for meting their proper deserts. This is play of

>the Supreme Lord.

> I believe that it is really difficult to express one self in an

>alien langauge like english on subjects like the one under

>discussion. Perhaps the word religion can be substituted by the

>words _ popular superficial understanding of epic stories.

>I would also suggest repectfully that we should avoid repeating

> " popular " concepts like Acharya Madhva being misunderstood ,

>Advaita - Dvaita etc being essentially different facets of the

>same underlying truths etc, They are simply not true. In

>particular, as I had said before, we should not imply even

>covertly, differences in the forms of Hari or any such cardinal

>tenets. Trying to find common ground between Vedanta schools

>either in theology or philosophy is totally useless as they are

>different from each other like chalk and cheese as the

>expression goes.

>NAPSRao

September 1, 1999

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:19:18 PDT " Shrisha Rao " <shrao

writes:

> " Shrisha Rao " <shrao

>

> Raghavendra Rachuri <rrachuri wrote:

>

> > It is still not clear to me why " Upadesha " is

> >opposed to Jignaasa.

I have also been unable to understand what Sri Jayakrishna Nelamangala is

trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong: Jignaasa means inquiry.

Jignaasu means inquirer. Jignaase means " to inquire " . Upadesha is what a

guru gives to his shishya-s. In other words, a guru's teachings to his

disciples can be called as upadesha.

Jignsase and upadesha go together. Under ideal conditions, when a shishya

(jignasu) shows genuine interest, the guru gives him upadesha and upon

getting that upadesha, the disciple will show even more interest and gets

more upadesha and this continues. Now, why is upadhesha opposed to

jignaasa ? I am unable to understand.

Also, even after all these postings, I haven't been able to understand

Sri JN's concept of Vedic Visnu and Visnu of religion. I think they are

one and the same. But people, depending on their swaroopa, may

" understand " Him differently. In that sense, one can say that Vedic

Visnu and Visnu of religion (Visnu of blind faith) are different. But

isn't it wise to say that there is only one Visnu but people " understand "

Him differently?

Not all the people who go to Tirupati understand Visnu from the viewpoint

of Vedas or Brahmasutras. But almost everyone accepts that Lord

Venkateshwara is God (though in their own way) and they worship Him and

fear Him and so on. Just because their understanding is different from

that of gnani-s, we cannot say that their Visnu is different from the

gnani-s' Visnu. This seems to suggest that there are two Visnu-s !

That's why it is wise to say that there is only one Visnu but people

" understand " Him differently. Of course, we have to keep in the back of

our mind that no jIva can understand Him completely.

Am I causing even more confusion? Or does my argument make sense?

Regards

-Nataraj

>

> It clearly is not, notwithstanding all the gobbledygook on the

> subject: the

> first sUtra is `OM athAto brahmajij~nAsA OM', and the seventh one is

> `OM

> tannishhThasya moxopadeshAt.h OM'. The inference is that one is to

> conduct

> `brahma-jij~nAsA' because, among other things, that would lead to

> one

> receiving upadeshA leading to mukti.

>

> Regards,

>

> Shrisha Rao

>

> >raghav

>

______________

Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --

Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!

Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

September 1, 1999

Hello Nataraj,

Thanks for posting your email. Let me explain why I say Upadesha is

opposed to Jignaasaa.

I don't know if you attended the Tickcharya Aradhane in Allentown, if you

did, I did talk about the two.

I will repeat it here. ( Remember, all this email exchanges have taken

place becuase Manish Tandon

who was present in Allentown, PA asked me a question, and when I replied

over the internet, it has

reached all others who have only heard part of the story).

..

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

Nataraj BV <ntj2

shrao <shrao

Cc: < >

Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:29 PM

Re: Re: [vmsvolunteers] Essential duties of a

mAdhva

>Nataraj BV <ntj2

>

>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:19:18 PDT " Shrisha Rao " <shrao

>writes:

>> " Shrisha Rao " <shrao

>>

>> Raghavendra Rachuri <rrachuri wrote:

>>

>> > It is still not clear to me why " Upadesha " is

>> >opposed to Jignaasa.

>

>I have also been unable to understand what Sri Jayakrishna Nelamangala is

>trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong: Jignaasa means inquiry.

>Jignaasu means inquirer. Jignaase means " to inquire " . Upadesha is what a

>guru gives to his shishya-s. In other words, a guru's teachings to his

>disciples can be called as upadesha.

>

>Jignsase and upadesha go together. Under ideal conditions, when a shishya

>(jignasu) shows genuine interest, the guru gives him upadesha and upon

>getting that upadesha, the disciple will show even more interest and gets

>more upadesha and this continues. Now, why is upadhesha opposed to

>jignaasa ? I am unable to understand.

>

>Also, even after all these postings, I haven't been able to understand

>Sri JN's concept of Vedic Visnu and Visnu of religion. I think they are

>one and the same. But people, depending on their swaroopa, may

> " understand " Him differently. In that sense, one can say that Vedic

>Visnu and Visnu of religion (Visnu of blind faith) are different. But

>isn't it wise to say that there is only one Visnu but people " understand "

> Him differently?

>

>Not all the people who go to Tirupati understand Visnu from the viewpoint

>of Vedas or Brahmasutras. But almost everyone accepts that Lord

>Venkateshwara is God (though in their own way) and they worship Him and

>fear Him and so on. Just because their understanding is different from

>that of gnani-s, we cannot say that their Visnu is different from the

>gnani-s' Visnu. This seems to suggest that there are two Visnu-s !

>That's why it is wise to say that there is only one Visnu but people

> " understand " Him differently. Of course, we have to keep in the back of

>our mind that no jIva can understand Him completely.

>

>Am I causing even more confusion? Or does my argument make sense?

>

>Regards

>-Nataraj

>

>>

>> It clearly is not, notwithstanding all the gobbledygook on the

>> subject: the

>> first sUtra is `OM athAto brahmajij~nAsA OM', and the seventh one is

>> `OM

>> tannishhThasya moxopadeshAt.h OM'. The inference is that one is to

>> conduct

>> `brahma-jij~nAsA' because, among other things, that would lead to

>> one

>> receiving upadeshA leading to mukti.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Shrisha Rao

>>

>> >raghav

>>

>

>______________

>Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --

>Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!

>Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com!

>If you join ONElist's FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to

><a href= " http://clickme./ad/Teaser115 " >Click Here</a>

>

>------

>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h|

>taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa|

>tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH |

>karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA ||

>

> " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are

His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not

otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are

due to His recurring grace "

>If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in

this way, it pleases Vishnu.

> --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya

September 1, 1999

OOPS, the previous mail went out before I added the material. Pressed

the wrong button I guess.

Hello Nataraj,

Thanks for posting your email. Let me explain why I say Upadesha is

opposed to Jignaasaa.

I don't know if you attended the Tickcharya Aradhane in Allentown, if you

did, I did talk about the two.

I will repeat it here. ( Remember, all this email exchanges have taken

place becuase Manish Tandon

who was present in Allentown, PA asked me a question, and when I replied

over the internet, it has

reached all others who have only heard part of the story).

Example: Say we have a fourth grader boy and somebody walks upto him and

says you know what there is a Maha-Prameya in physics called E=Mc2 which

has been used to build nuclear bombs. The boy looks at the cute looking

equation and gets it by-heart in no time. He is happy that he understood

the most powerful Prameya in physics.

The Upanishads call this situation “ Swayam Kritharthah Iti Abhimanyanti

Balaaha”. He does not know that the Upanishads say this, so he is happy.

Ignorance is bliss. Then somebody else walks upto him and says you know

what there is a Maha-Prameya in Physics called E=Mc3. No but it is E=MC2

is it not?. Who said, it is E=Mc3. Now, our boy is confused. He does

not know anymore to believe in E=Mc2 or in E=Mc3.. The reason being the

knowledge of prameya E=Mc2 came to him in the form of Upadesha and not thro

the study of shastra. You believe in something because you don’t know

about it, and when knowledge sets in there is no room for belief. As long

as there is belief, you do not have Nischaya Jnana,

And it is only Jignasaa that brings Nischaya Jnana or Yathartha Jnana.

“Samyak Nirneetha arthanaam Hi Eeshware Manas Samaadhanam Samyak Bhavathi,

Tad Hi Moksha Saadhanam " ” - Geetha Bhashya.

Say, our 4th grader goes to a “Shroteeyam Brahma Nishtam” Guru, to find

out if E=Mc2 or E=Mc3 is right. Then a proper Guru would tell him not to

worry about Prameyas, but would teach him the Shastras

Of calculus, algebra, newtonian physics, theory of relativity and all this

would probably take 10 years of study and at the end the 4 th grader would

be in college level, and will be able to derive E=mc2=For himself, and at

this stage his knowledge of E=mc2 is not a belief anymore but “Samyak

Nirneetha Artha” or Shaastra Janya Jnana Now if someone comes along and

tells him E=Mc3, then he

Knows that there is some problem in Yukti ( Kinchit tat Anyathaa Jnaatham)

and that the guys education

Has gotten derailed somewhere.and directs him to go a proper guru and

educate himself and not to worry about Prameyas.

So, knowledge of Prameyas must come as a result of Jignaasaa ( shravana,

Manana Nidhidhyaasana) and Not in the form of upadesha or belief.

This is true even for laukika vidyaas like physics, then it must be true

for Brahma-Vidya. Because, “Brahma Vidyaam Sarva Vidyaa Prasthistaam” as

it encompasses all vidyas.

I hope this helps.