Guest guest Posted September 1, 1999 Report Share Posted September 1, 1999 Dear fellow madhvas, I too looked up the Apte and Monier_williams dicts. and agree with the meaning of upadesha and jijnasa as related by Mr Nataraj below : >Nataraj BV <ntj2 >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. In fact M-W goes to say krita-jijnAsa = having put to proof any one At least to me it is easy to understand the phrase " upadesha as opposed to jijnAsa " . The flaw in Mr. Natarj's argument lies in the second para above. There Mr. Nataraj argues jijnAsa follows upadesha but this is certainly not the case always. The student might just follow upadesha in a " rote learining " kind of way. For ex., if I had done jijnAsa of all the physics upadeshas I have heard I would be a much better physicist :-). What is true of techincal knowledge is true of philosophical knowledge. Therefore the statements : " athAto brahma jijnAsa " and " atha yogAnushasanam " are quite different. I translate them (freely) as " Thus investigation into brahman " and " Thus instruction in yoga " . At least in this instance it would appear that english language is quite adequate in translation. As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding " satyanArayana vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is true that not everyone " who go to Tirupati understands Visnu from the viewpoint of Vedas or Brahmasutras " but at least in this group the scholars can help ameliorate the situation by giving upadesha and hopefully some of the recipients will do jijnAsa on it :-). regards, Shri Kanekal ====================================================================== Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Road Greenbelt, MD 20771 ====================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 1999 Report Share Posted September 1, 1999 KANEKAL wrote: > As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed > satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding > " satyanArayana > vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is His explanation was incorrect, I'm afraid, in light of the sUtra || OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || The appearance of " vindictiveness " is no reason for such specious reasoning. Regards, Shrisha Rao > Shri Kanekal > > > ====================================================================== > Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 > Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 > Goddard Space Flight Center > Greenbelt Road > Greenbelt, MD 20771 > ====================================================================== > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and >CONNECT to people with the same interests. > >------ >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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 1999 Report Share Posted September 2, 1999 Vasu Murthy <vmurthy wrote: >Shrisha Rao wrote: > > > " Shrisha Rao " <shrao > > > > KANEKAL wrote: > > > > > As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed > > > satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding > > > " satyanArayana > > > vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is > > > > His explanation was incorrect, I'm afraid, in light of the sUtra > > > > || OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || >Summary meaning: God gives the " phala " or the results of the karma >according to the karma (or action). So " vaishmyanairghR^inya " dosha does >not appear in God. > This says that even though God appears to have " vaishmyanairghR^inya " >dosha " (which appears to be from cursory reading of the katha), he does not >have any such defects. He gives the results of the karma from the kinds of >the karma itself (Law of >karma- You reap what you sow). Quite right. The point therefore is that an alleged difference between a " Vedic Vishnu " who is formless and not seen to have any flaws, and a " Vishnu of religion " who has a form and is vindictive, is unsupported, since there is no evidence for any flaw such as the " vindictiveness " alleged to be found in the satyanArAyana-kathA. If it is to be suggested that the *appearance* of vindictiveness is what causes the distinction, then we must disagree. It is similar to saying that the apparent silver is different from the real conch-shell, or that the apparent snake is different from the real rope. Acharya Madhva and his disciples have successfully smashed claims to the effect that such illusory " differences " could account for the statements of [apparent] difference found in the scriptures. Therefore, if you would continue to hold that there somehow is a " Vishnu of religion, " be he only a figment of misinformed imagination, who is different from the " Vedic Vishnu, " you should at least be aware that you are hugging to the bosom an illogical tenet that is the antithesis of what our Acharya has established rigorously. Mere drivel or blinders ( " what is your definition of religion? " ) cannot get away from this fact. Regards, Shrisha Rao P.S. I notice that I'm being cc'd on most of the messages in this thread, even the ones that aren't responses to me; please don't. > Hope this clarifies the matters. > > >Regards, > Vasu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 1999 Report Share Posted September 2, 1999 Shrisha Rao wrote: > " Shrisha Rao " <shrao > > KANEKAL wrote: > > > As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed > > satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding > > " satyanArayana > > vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is > > His explanation was incorrect, I'm afraid, in light of the sUtra > > || OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || > > The appearance of " vindictiveness " is no reason for such specious reasoning. > > Regards, > > Shrisha Rao > krishNabhaktas, Greetings on the auspicious day of sri krishNAshtami.! There seems to be some confusion here. The sutra conveys the exact meaning that I have conveyed in my post. Here is the meaning of the sutra with translation of the bhashya from book " tatvaprakashika " by C.K. SubbaRao. Unfortunately, the book just gives the kannada translation of the bhashya and tIka without the sanskrit originals. I have translated the bhashya. All errors in translation are mine. Summary meaning: God gives the " phala " or the results of the karma according to the karma (or action). So " vaishmyanairghR^inya " dosha does not appear in God. Bhashya: If we claim that God should have " vaishamya " dosha since God is " sarvakarta " or doer of everything, sutrakAra says that since God gives " phala " or results to jIva due to the " karmApekshe " or wanting the results of karma, God does not have " vaishmyanairghR^inya " dosha. Shruti says that " punyEna punyaM lokaM nayanti, pApEna pApaM " ((jivAs) go to punya loka (heaven) from punya (good deeds) and pApaM (hell) pApEna (from bad deeds)). This says that even though God appears to have " vaishmyanairghR^inya " dosha " (which appears to be from cursory reading of the katha), he does not have any such defects. He gives the results of the karma from the kinds of the karma itself (Law of karma- You reap what you sow). Hope this clarifies the matters. Regards, Vasu -- ================================= Vasu Murthy Bell Atlantic Global Networks web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy vmurthy W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359 ================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 1999 Report Share Posted September 2, 1999 Hi Shrisha Rao, Thanks for quoting the sutra. Since Sutras have the Nirnaayakatva, and all the shrutis and smritis are Nirneya ( that is whose meaning needs to be fixed), you starting with a sutra is the right thing to do. This is what I have been saying all along from day 1. In this sense, with or without your knowledge we are both talking of the same thing. Although you have used the sutra to show that I was wrong, that will not really bother me a bit, I would really be bothered when my jignaasaa cycle ( viz vishaya - samshaya - poorvapaksha - Uttarapaksha) comes to a halt and as long as my shastra abhyaasa is intact I am not really worried. As the prameya jnana ( in this case whether God has " vindictiveness " or not ) should come as a product of brahma-jignaasaa as I grow. This is how I have learnt for ex. mathematics, gotten wrong answers, correcting myself and moving along and not getting stuck with those answers ( or prameyas in this case). This is the correct and only methodology in shastra as well. Having said that, let me first translate this sutra into english for the benefit of " internet " community. I have to do this, becuase you just quoted the sutra and concluded I was wrong, atleast a 2-line description would have helped I suppose. The sutra-sangati for this sutra is the following: ( sangati means the chain of thought, a group of sutras which are all pertinent to one item of discussion is called " adhikarana " . Srimad Ananda Theertha has written Nyaya-Vivarana, to show the logic behind this adhikarana classification of sutras). This Sutra comes towards the end of the second adhyaaya ( ie avirodha-Adyaaya, there are four chapters or adyaayas of brahma-sutras, samanvaya, avirodha, sadhana and phala). and in this adhikarana there are 3 sutras, the one Mr. Shrisha Rao has quoted and two following this which he has not bothered to quote. As I said earlier, since one Adhikarana is one unit of thought, it only makes sense to take all the sutras in one adhikarana for completeness of the thought process. The three of them together are: || OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || || OM Na Karmaavibhaagaaditi Chennanaaditvaat OM || || OM Upapadyate Chaapyupalabhyate cha OM || The sangati for this one is the following: the previous adhikarana talks about Sristi, sthithi, etc and issues like what does God gain by doing all this?. etc. In this adhikarana, a rational explanation of inequalities that we observe all around us in life in terms happiness, suffering, poverty, levels of comprehension etc is covered. The question is, is God responsible ( in the sense liable) in making some happy and some not. In Shuddanandoru Samvit.... Tikacharya has shown that God is Ashesha Doshaatidoora, as in " Chintaa santaapa lepodbhava mrtimukharaashesha dosaatiduram " It is absolutely free from all defects, such as anxiety(chinta). Pain santaapa) responsibility (lepa) birth ( udbhava) and death (mrti). If we ask, if responsibility is a defect and God does not have that defect, then how all these inqualities around us are explained, then the Second sutra above gives the explanation. I think Vasu's explanation from the first Krishna Bhakta Sammelana that it is alluded to individual's karma etc is very well stated so I won't repeat it here, but just I will mention the corresponding original statements. " anaadi vidyaa karmaadi vaichitryaat viachitram " - Brahma Sutra Bhashya. " Naayuktam yad vadet shrutihi " - Anu Bhashya If everything happens because of an individual's Karma, then where is the Svatantrya of Paramaatma? Srimad Ananda Theertha answers this question in the Bhashya for the third sutra as: " na cha Karmaapekshatvena Eeshwarasya asvaatantryam " " Dravyam karma cha kaalascha Svabhaavo jeeva eva cha yadanugrahataha santi na santi yad upekshayaa " Ityaadinaa karmaadeenam sattvasyaapi tadadhinatvaat " The Satta of Karma etc are Paramaatma Adhina and therefore, He is Svatantra .. Harihi Om. Now let us go back and see what I have said which Mr. Shrisha Rao considers is wrong. While describing a God of blind faith I said, - " the God that gets angry " for which Vasu gave an example from SathyaNarayana Vratha Katha and I replied how looking from the nyaya provided by Brahma-Sutras we can see eka-vakyataa among Sutras, Shrutis and Puraanas, the process called Samanvaya in Shastra. Now Mr. Shrisha Rao, can you please explain who is wrong where, when and why? Jayakrishna Nelamangala ---------- ---------- RJAY Consultants Inc., Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 Email: jay ---------- ---------- Shrisha Rao <shrao < > Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:35 PM Re: upadesha vs jijnasa > " Shrisha Rao " <shrao > >KANEKAL wrote: > >> As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed >> satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding >> " satyanArayana >> vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is > >His explanation was incorrect, I'm afraid, in light of the sUtra > >|| OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || > >The appearance of " vindictiveness " is no reason for such specious reasoning. > >Regards, > >Shrisha Rao > > >> Shri Kanekal > > >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 >> Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 >> Goddard Space Flight Center >> Greenbelt Road >> Greenbelt, MD 20771 >> ====================================================================== >> >> >>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- >> >>ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and >>CONNECT to people with the same interests. >> >>------ >>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 >> > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist: home to the world's liveliest email communities. > >------ >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 1999 Report Share Posted September 2, 1999 >This Sutra comes towards the end of the second adhyaaya I should have said towards the end of the first section (paada) of the second adhyaaya. Jayakrishna Nelamangala ---------- ---------- RJAY Consultants Inc., Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 Email: jay ---------- ---------- Jay Nelamangala <jay Shrisha Rao <shrao; < > Thursday, September 02, 1999 2:52 PM Re: upadesha vs jijnasa > " Jay Nelamangala " <jay > >Hi Shrisha Rao, > >Thanks for quoting the sutra. Since Sutras have the Nirnaayakatva, and >all the shrutis and smritis are Nirneya ( that is whose meaning needs to be >fixed), you starting with a sutra is the right thing to do. >This is what I have been saying all along from day 1. In this sense, with >or without your knowledge we >are both talking of the same thing. > >Although you have used the sutra to show that I was wrong, that will not >really bother me a bit, >I would really be bothered when my jignaasaa cycle ( viz vishaya - >samshaya - poorvapaksha - Uttarapaksha) comes to a halt and as long as my >shastra abhyaasa is intact I am not really worried. >As the prameya jnana ( in this case whether God has " vindictiveness " or >not ) should come as a >product of brahma-jignaasaa as I grow. This is how I have learnt for ex. >mathematics, gotten wrong answers, correcting myself and moving along and >not getting stuck with those answers ( or prameyas in this >case). This is the correct and only methodology in shastra as well. > >Having said that, let me first translate this sutra into english for the >benefit of " internet " community. >I have to do this, becuase you just quoted the sutra and concluded I was >wrong, atleast a 2-line description would have helped I suppose. > >The sutra-sangati for this sutra is the following: ( sangati means the chain >of thought, > a group of sutras which are all pertinent to one item of discussion is >called " adhikarana " . Srimad Ananda Theertha has written Nyaya-Vivarana, >to show the logic behind this adhikarana classification of sutras). >This Sutra comes towards the end of the second adhyaaya ( ie >avirodha-Adyaaya, there are four >chapters or adyaayas of brahma-sutras, samanvaya, avirodha, sadhana and >phala). and in this >adhikarana there are 3 sutras, the one Mr. Shrisha Rao has quoted and two >following this which he has not >bothered to quote. As I said earlier, since one Adhikarana is one unit of >thought, it only makes sense to >take all the sutras in one adhikarana for completeness of the thought >process. > >The three of them together are: > >|| OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || >|| OM Na Karmaavibhaagaaditi Chennanaaditvaat OM || >|| OM Upapadyate Chaapyupalabhyate cha OM || > >The sangati for this one is the following: the previous adhikarana talks >about Sristi, sthithi, etc and issues like what does God gain by doing all >this?. etc. In this adhikarana, a rational explanation of inequalities >that we observe all around us in life in terms happiness, suffering, >poverty, levels of comprehension etc is covered. The question is, is God >responsible ( in the sense liable) in making some happy and some not. >In Shuddanandoru Samvit.... Tikacharya has shown that God is Ashesha >Doshaatidoora, as in > " Chintaa santaapa lepodbhava mrtimukharaashesha dosaatiduram " >It is absolutely free from all defects, such as anxiety(chinta). Pain > santaapa) responsibility (lepa) birth ( udbhava) and death (mrti). > >If we ask, if responsibility is a defect and God does not have that defect, >then how all these inqualities around us are explained, then the Second >sutra above gives the explanation. I think Vasu's >explanation from the first Krishna Bhakta Sammelana that it is alluded to >individual's karma etc is very well >stated so I won't repeat it here, but just I will mention the corresponding >original statements. > > " anaadi vidyaa karmaadi vaichitryaat viachitram " - Brahma Sutra Bhashya. > " Naayuktam yad vadet shrutihi " - Anu Bhashya > >If everything happens because of an individual's Karma, then where is the >Svatantrya of Paramaatma? > >Srimad Ananda Theertha answers this question in the Bhashya for the third >sutra as: > > " na cha Karmaapekshatvena Eeshwarasya asvaatantryam " > > " Dravyam karma cha kaalascha Svabhaavo jeeva eva cha >yadanugrahataha santi na santi yad upekshayaa " >Ityaadinaa karmaadeenam sattvasyaapi tadadhinatvaat " > >The Satta of Karma etc are Paramaatma Adhina and therefore, He is Svatantra >. > >Harihi Om. > >Now let us go back and see what I have said which Mr. Shrisha Rao considers >is wrong. > >While describing a God of blind faith I said, - " the God that gets angry " >for which Vasu gave an >example from SathyaNarayana Vratha Katha and I replied how looking from the >nyaya provided by >Brahma-Sutras we can see eka-vakyataa among Sutras, Shrutis and Puraanas, >the process called Samanvaya in Shastra. > >Now Mr. Shrisha Rao, can you please explain who is wrong where, when and >why? > >Jayakrishna Nelamangala > >--------- - >---------- >RJAY Consultants Inc., >Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 >Email: jay >--------- - >---------- > >Shrisha Rao <shrao > < > >Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:35 PM >Re: upadesha vs jijnasa > > >> " Shrisha Rao " <shrao >> >>KANEKAL wrote: >> >>> As to vedic vs. religious vishnus - jayakrishna's explanation seemed >>> satisfactory especially in light of Vasu's comments regarding >>> " satyanArayana >>> vrata " . I too find it hard to believe in a vindictive god. It is >> >>His explanation was incorrect, I'm afraid, in light of the sUtra >> >>|| OM vaishhyamyanairghR^iNye na sApexatvAttathA hi darshayati OM || >> >>The appearance of " vindictiveness " is no reason for such specious >reasoning. >> >>Regards, >> >>Shrisha Rao >> >> >>> Shri Kanekal >> >> >>> >>> >>> ====================================================================== >>> Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 >>> Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 >>> Goddard Space Flight Center >>> Greenbelt Road >>> Greenbelt, MD 20771 >>> ====================================================================== >>> >>> >>>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- >>> >>>ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and >>>CONNECT to people with the same interests. >>> >>>------ >>>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 >>> >> >>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- >> >>ONElist: home to the world's liveliest email communities. >> >>------ >>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 > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes! >For details on ONElist's NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to ><a href= " http://clickme./ad/Teaser111 " >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.