Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Namaste, Answers to the extent I know. 2C welcome. 1. vakuLA devi is yashoda. I think Bhavishyottara and Aditya puranas mention this. don't have the exact reference though. I am sure you are aware that Yashoda's mis-identification of the Lord as 'her son' resulted in another birth as vakuLA. Recently I heard another version that Yashoda desired to be perform the marriage of Lord, something she missed after the Lord left Nandavraja. Similarly Devaki expresses her wish to see the Lord's 'bAla-leela', which he demonstrates immediately. It is said that Rukmini caught a glimpse of that form and requested the Lord to create an icon resembling that form; which is present at Udipi now (story present in Udipi's sthaLapurANa). 2. In the preface of Sri K.T.Pandurangi's edn of Bhagavata, the editor raises the issue of discrepancies in the event relating to the capture of Ashvatthama after the war. Without disregarding either text (Mahabharata and Bhagavata in this case) the reconciliation is done by understanding that there are slight variations in the events occurring in different mahAyugas, hence different texts are referring to events in different yugas. I think the same idea can be applied here: Janaka Maharaja referring to Srinivasa of some earlier cycle (manvantara or mahAyuga etc). Also, the fact that all forms of Lord are eternal should corroborate this idea (and answer the question of Srinivasa gaining the land from Lord Varaha, who is in incarnation of satyayuga!) Just in case one were to wonder later; how did Veda Vyasa, the author of purANAs and who lived in Dvapara yuga, mention an event that occurred in Kali yuga? The answer lies in the fact that mAdhva tradition holds purANAs as 'nitya-anitya'. Unlike the svara, order etc that are eternally unchanged in Vedas, the purANAs undergo a change of order, though not of content. ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa counted among the dashAvatArAs? ___ 3. I have also heard from Sri Vaishnavas that Govindaraja was son of vakuLA devi, whose 'adopted son' was Lord Srinivasa. They also seem to hold that Govindaraja was an avatara of Adi-sesha. Don't know if purANAs mention the same. One reason to be suspicious about it is the idea that Srimad Acharya talks about balancing of various devatas' seva done in Rama and krishna-avataaraas. He does not mention any exception in Sesha's case (whose seva as Lakshmana was well returned in KrishnAvatara.) Hare Srinivasa, Krishna P.S: 2C = C+C = Comments and Corrections. > > balkundi anita [abalkundi] > Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:25 AM > > questions on srinivasa kalyana > 1.Who is bakuLa devi - Devaki or yashoda? > 2. Sri Venkatesha mahatme starts with sri shatananda > maharshi narrating the story to janaka raja. Since > Janaka raja belongs to 24th tretayuga and srinivasa > avatara is supposed to have taken place in the 28th kaliyuga(see > sanchan.com page 3) how do we reconcile the dates here? Is Shatananda > Maharshi narrating what would occur in 28th kaliyuga? > 3. Who is Govinda raja(the temple diety at the foot > hills)? Sri vaishnava archakas in that temple claim > him to be the brother of srinivasa. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Krishna K wrote October 17, 2002 : > 1. vakuLA devi is yashoda. I think Bhavishyottara and Aditya puranas > mention this. don't have the exact reference though. I am sure you are > aware that Yashoda's mis-identification of the Lord as 'her son' > resulted in another birth as vakuLA. Recently I heard another version > that Yashoda desired to be perform the marriage of Lord, something she > missed after the Lord left Nandavraja. It is mentioned in the Venkatesha vR^ittAnta that when Yashoda expressed to Lord Krishna that though He married so many times, she could not witness even one marriage, the Lord replied to her saying that when He comes as Srinivasa, she would not only witness His marriage, but she will be instrumental in arranging it. Thus Vakula Devi plays an important role. > 2. In the preface of Sri K.T.Pandurangi's edn of Bhagavata, the editor > raises the issue of discrepancies in the event relating to the capture > of Ashvatthama after the war. Without disregarding either text > (Mahabharata and Bhagavata in this case) the reconciliation is done by > understanding that there are slight variations in the events occurring > in different mahAyugas, In that particular case, the reconciliation is done thus : In Bhagavata, the particular part is dream of Ashvatthama. In Mahabharata, it is the actual sequence. Of course there are other instances, where different manvantaras contain different sequences. > I think the same idea can be applied here: Janaka Maharaja referring to > Srinivasa of some earlier cycle (manvantara or mahAyuga etc). Certainly. Lord repeats His Leelas in this infinite Time-cycle. Its happening in 28th Kaliyuga does not preclude, its happening in earlier Kaliyuga. In fact just as one Mahayuga (collection of all 4 yugas) follows another, one Brahmakalpa follows another. > ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa counted among the > dashAvatArAs? ___ Srinivasa is not counted as an Avatara. Lord just came down to earth. Also as the name indicates (Srinivasa - One in Whom Laxmi resides always and one Who resides in Laxmi always), it is all His leela and a way to bless His devotees and He never had any separation with Laxmi. Same way another question is " Why not Srinivasa mentioned in the 24 names " Keshavaya namaH... " ? In fact it is mentioned : Srinivasa and Sridhara are synonymous. > 3. I have also heard from Sri Vaishnavas that Govindaraja was son of > vakuLA devi, whose 'adopted son' was Lord Srinivasa. They also seem to > hold that Govindaraja was an avatara of Adi-sesha. Don't know if purANAs > mention the same. We don't accept this as there is no supporting evidence. Also they further mention that Ramanuja, their preacher, is also Sheshavatara (saying Ramanuja means Rama's younger brother). Regards, Kesav > Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 > 1. RE: questions on srinivasa kalyana > " Krishna K " <kadirik > > > > ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa > counted among the > dashAvatArAs? ___ > I heard that Srinivasa avatara is basically an extension of Krishna avatara hence not counted as a distinct avatara. > 3. I have also heard from Sri Vaishnavas that > Govindaraja was son of > vakuLA devi, whose 'adopted son' was Lord Srinivasa. > They also seem to > hold that Govindaraja was an avatara of Adi-sesha. > Don't know if purANAs > mention the same. One reason to be suspicious about > it is the idea that > Srimad Acharya talks about balancing of various > devatas' seva done in > Rama and krishna-avataaraas. He does not mention any > exception in > Sesha's case (whose seva as Lakshmana was well > returned in > KrishnAvatara.) I was wondering if Govindaraja was an avatara of sesha, what seva did he offer to Lord srinivasa during that period? Thanks, Anita > > Hare Srinivasa, > > Krishna > > P.S: 2C = C+C = Comments and Corrections. > > > > > balkundi anita [abalkundi] > > Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:25 AM > > > > questions on > srinivasa kalyana > > > 1.Who is bakuLa devi - Devaki or yashoda? > > > 2. Sri Venkatesha mahatme starts with sri > shatananda > > maharshi narrating the story to janaka raja. > Since > > Janaka raja belongs to 24th tretayuga and > srinivasa > > avatara is supposed to have taken place in the > 28th kaliyuga(see > > sanchan.com page 3) how do we reconcile the dates > here? Is Shatananda > > Maharshi narrating what would occur in 28th > kaliyuga? > > > 3. Who is Govinda raja(the temple diety at the > foot > > hills)? Sri vaishnava archakas in that temple > claim > > him to be the brother of srinivasa. > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 > > Kesava Rao Tadipatri [meerakesav] > Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:47 PM > > ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa counted among the > > dashAvatArAs? ___ > Srinivasa is not counted as an Avatara. Lord just came down > to earth. Also as the name indicates (Srinivasa - One in Whom > Laxmi resides always and one Who resides in Laxmi always), it > is all His leela and a way to bless His devotees and He never > had any separation with Laxmi. This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord Himself came down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord in Vaikuntha. while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible both on earth and in Vaikuntha as well. In this regard, folks who to 'srisudha' magazine of uttaradi mutt might recall a recent discussion -- When Yamaraja was on earth as Dharmaraja and Vidura, who was handling the affairs of 'samyaminI pura' (abode of Yama). There were two articles in a gap of two months, which must have left the reader in a big confusion. Then there was this issue of devatAs having some different bodies outside the brahmANDa at the same time as they are in brahmANDa. Absolutely confused. I have heard of the reason mentioned by Ms.Anita too: >I heard that Srinivasa avatara is basically an >extension of Krishna avatara hence not counted as a >distinct avatara. But Mahabharata and Bhagavata clearly mention Krishna ending his avatara on earth. So, how can Srinivasa be an extension of Krishna avatara? > Same way another question is " Why not Srinivasa mentioned in > the 24 names " Keshavaya namaH... " ? In fact it is mentioned : > Srinivasa and Sridhara are synonymous. But how about exclusion of Vedavyasa and others? Ok, I think the question to ask why X is not counted among the set of Y avataraas is not OK in the first place. Do we have some criteria for grouping the avatArAs? Btw, I am sure that many would be aware that Krishna, Narayana, Hari etc that are mentioned in the 24 forms are different forms from that in Krishnavataara, mUla rupa etc. Sumadhva Vijaya does mention these rupas separately and I think Sri Vadiraja has given a stotra explaining the different forms. > We don't accept this as there is no supporting evidence. Also > they further mention that Ramanuja, their preacher, is also > Sheshavatara (saying Ramanuja means Rama's younger brother). We should kindly point out to the episode of Vayu blowing Sesha (the prelude to formation of Sheshachala) off :-) On a different note, Ramanujites seem to differ from us majorly on 'Ananda taaratamya', 'aprithak-siddha', 'nitya-suri', 'hanuman is less than garuda' concepts. But looks like there are more differences esp in the context of avataara. a. They do not hold that all forms of Lord are eternal. b. They hold that the icons (vigraha) at some places are ACTUAL material transformations of Lord. c. Not accepting Buddha as an avataara, instead Balarama as an avataara. Apparently the marks they wear on their forehead; even those are referred as 'UrdhvapuNDra', which I thought referred only to the marks we wear. Regards, Krishna P.S. Moderator sir, if you want this discussion to be exported to VMS-Philosophy forum and discontinue it here, let us know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 > > > ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa counted among the > > > dashAvatArAs? ___ I think this is very easy to refute based on the original posting which reads: > > > " srinivasa avatara is supposed to have taken place in > > > the 28th kaliyuga(see sanchan.com page 3) According to Sumadhva Vijaya [2\2], Narayana doesn't take any avatAra in the Kaliyuga. " naathaH kalau triyugahuutiranudbubhuuShuH " > This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord Himself came > down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord in Vaikuntha. > while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible both on earth > and in Vaikuntha as well. I don't think it means that " there was no visible form of the Lord in Vaikuntha " . For mukta-s and mukhyaprANa [and Ruju yogi-s?] he is always " visible " . > When Yamaraja was on earth as Dharmaraja and Vidura, who was > handling the affairs of 'samyaminI pura'(abode of Yama). Yamaraja can be present in Vidura and Dharmaraja, but not in 'samyaminI pura' ?? Do you mean to say that Indraloka was without a Indra when Arjuna was on earth ? Only in the case of the Lord and Laxmi, and in MukhyaprANa the mUla rUpa is same as avatAra rUpa. For the rest, it is always amshAvatAra. Check their moxa mArga --all devatA-s born as avatArA-s rejoin with their original mUla rUpA-s before getting mukti. > There were two articles in a gap of two months, which > must have left the reader in a big confusion. Note: I don't mean to offend any online or offline publishers/ supporters, but one has to take whatever that is posted on the net and also most of the printed books with great caution, irrespective of the foreword-s, ashirvachana, etc. > > Same way another question is " Why not Srinivasa mentioned in > > the 24 names " Keshavaya namaH... " ? In fact it is mentioned : > > Srinivasa and Sridhara are synonymous. > But how about exclusion of Vedavyasa and others? 24 nAmA-s are all vyAHruthi rUpA-s. > Ok, I think the question to ask why X is not counted among the > set of Y avataraas is not OK in the first place. Yes! > Do we have some criteria for grouping the avatArAs? I don't know --- basically they all have prAdurbhAvA-s. The mUla rUpA-s get manifested in some form. For example mUla rUpa Narasimha is ever present in our SvarUpa deha, but maifests as " Narasimha " in the Narasimha avatAra " Btw, keep in mind savisheshhAbheda. > Btw, I am sure that many would be aware that Krishna, Narayana, > Hari etc that are mentioned in the 24 forms paramAtmane satatamekarUpiNe dasharUpine shatashahasrarUpiNe avikAriNe... > Sumadhva Vijaya does mention these rupas > separately Canto VIII, 14-41: http://www.dvaita.net > and I think Sri Vadiraja has given a stotra explaining the > different forms. chaturviMshatimUrtibhedastotram.h http://www.dvaita.net Regards, Meera > Krishna > > P.S. Moderator sir, if you want this discussion to be exported to > VMS-Philosophy forum and discontinue it here, let us know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2002 Report Share Posted October 19, 2002 >Only in the case of the Lord and Laxmi, and in MukhyaprANa >the mUla rUpa is same as avatAra rUpa. For the rest, it is >always amshAvatAra. Check their moxa mArga --all devatA-s >born as avatArA-s rejoin with their original mUla rUpA-s >before getting mukti. Re: I think even Bharathi devi also has mula rupa same as avatara rupa. What abt rujus?Do they have mUla rUpa same as avatAra rUpa? Kindly pardon me,if my comments are wrong. Vadiraj On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 Meera Tadipatri wrote : > > > > ___ A burning question is: Why isn't Srinivasa counted >among the > > > > dashAvatArAs? ___ > >I think this is very easy to refute based on the original >posting >which reads: > > > > > " srinivasa avatara is supposed to have taken place in > > > > the 28th kaliyuga(see sanchan.com page 3) > >According to Sumadhva Vijaya [2\2], Narayana doesn't take any >avatAra in the Kaliyuga. > > " naathaH kalau triyugahuutiranudbubhuuShuH " > > > This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord Himself >came > > down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord in >Vaikuntha. > > while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible both >on earth > > and in Vaikuntha as well. > >I don't think it means that " there was no visible form of the >Lord >in Vaikuntha " . For mukta-s and mukhyaprANa [and Ruju yogi-s?] he >is >always " visible " . > > > When Yamaraja was on earth as Dharmaraja and Vidura, who was > > handling the affairs of 'samyaminI pura'(abode of Yama). > >Yamaraja can be present in Vidura and Dharmaraja, but not >in 'samyaminI pura' ?? Do you mean to say that Indraloka >was without a Indra when Arjuna was on earth ? > >Only in the case of the Lord and Laxmi, and in MukhyaprANa >the mUla rUpa is same as avatAra rUpa. For the rest, it is >always amshAvatAra. Check their moxa mArga --all devatA-s >born as avatArA-s rejoin with their original mUla rUpA-s >before getting mukti. > > > There were two articles in a gap of two months, which > > must have left the reader in a big confusion. > >Note: I don't mean to offend any online or offline publishers/ >supporters, but one has to take whatever that is posted on the >net and also most of the printed books with great caution, >irrespective of the foreword-s, ashirvachana, etc. > > > > Same way another question is " Why not Srinivasa mentioned >in > > > the 24 names " Keshavaya namaH... " ? In fact it is mentioned >: > > > Srinivasa and Sridhara are synonymous. > > > But how about exclusion of Vedavyasa and others? > >24 nAmA-s are all vyAHruthi rUpA-s. > > > Ok, I think the question to ask why X is not counted among >the > > set of Y avataraas is not OK in the first place. > >Yes! > > > Do we have some criteria for grouping the avatArAs? > >I don't know --- basically they all have prAdurbhAvA-s. >The mUla rUpA-s get manifested in some form. For example >mUla rUpa Narasimha is ever present in our SvarUpa deha, >but maifests as " Narasimha " in the Narasimha avatAra " >Btw, keep in mind savisheshhAbheda. > > > Btw, I am sure that many would be aware that Krishna, >Narayana, > > Hari etc that are mentioned in the 24 forms > >paramAtmane satatamekarUpiNe dasharUpine shatashahasrarUpiNe >avikAriNe... > > > Sumadhva Vijaya does mention these rupas > > separately > >Canto VIII, 14-41: > >http://www.dvaita.net > > > and I think Sri Vadiraja has given a stotra explaining the > > different forms. > >chaturviMshatimUrtibhedastotram.h > >http://www.dvaita.net > >Regards, > >Meera > > > Krishna > > > > P.S. Moderator sir, if you want this discussion to be exported >to > > VMS-Philosophy forum and discontinue it here, let us know. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 > > Meera Tadipatri [meerakesav] > Friday, October 18, 2002 10:49 PM > > > > " srinivasa avatara is supposed to have taken place in > > > > the 28th kaliyuga(see sanchan.com page 3) > According to Sumadhva Vijaya [2\2], Narayana doesn't take any > avatAra in the Kaliyuga. > " naathaH kalau triyugahuutiranudbubhuuShuH " Which only adds to the difficulty. The statements " Srinivasa avataara isn't avataara " and " Srinivasa=Lord " kind of do not gell well. I think Sri Keshava Rao has answered this. > > This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord Himself came > > down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord in > Vaikuntha. > > while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible both on > > earth and in Vaikuntha as well. > I don't think it means that " there was no visible form of > the Lord in Vaikuntha " . For mukta-s and mukhyaprANa [and Ruju > yogi-s?] he is always " visible " . Aren't there two vaikuNThas; one where muktas stay and one where amuktas like Sesha etc stay? I was referring to the latter, where Vishnu was not visible to people below Bharati Devi when he come down as Srinivasa? > > When Yamaraja was on earth as Dharmaraja and Vidura, who > was handling > > the affairs of 'samyaminI pura'(abode of Yama). > > Yamaraja can be present in Vidura and Dharmaraja, but not > in 'samyaminI pura' ?? Do you mean to say that Indraloka > was without a Indra when Arjuna was on earth ? Well, I don't remember what exactly the articles mention, but this was one question which had contradicting answers but both referring to Srimad Acharya's work (Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya). I shall read the articles and pose the question separately. Yes, you are right; I don't know why the question of Indra Loka sans Indra did not occur. However, my bigger apprehension was regarding the presence of these devatAs having some body outside the brahmANDa ALSO. > Only in the case of the Lord and Laxmi, and in MukhyaprANa > the mUla rUpa is same as avatAra rUpa. For the rest, it is > always amshAvatAra. Check their moxa mArga --all devatA-s > born as avatArA-s rejoin with their original mUla rUpA-s > before getting mukti. For the devatas, their amshas merge with them as soon as the avataara ends. No need to wait till mukti. > > Btw, I am sure that many would be aware that Krishna, > Narayana, Hari > > etc that are mentioned in the 24 forms > > paramAtmane satatamekarUpiNe dasharUpine shatashahasrarUpiNe > avikAriNe... > > > Sumadhva Vijaya does mention these rupas > > separately > > Canto VIII, 14-41: > http://www.dvaita.net I made a mistake in thinking that the rupas mentioned in Sumadhva vijaya, 8th chapter (of Narayana, Hari, Krishna -- all sons of Yamadharmaraja) are same as the rupas chanted in the keshavAdi 24 series. But the 'Vedavyasagadya' of Sri YadavAryaru mentions them separately: kapila dattAtreya R^iShabha nara nArAyANa hari kR^iShNa tApasa manu mahidAsa yaj~na dhanvantari nArAyaNI sanatkumAra dhavaLapakshavirAjitahaMsasvarUpAya | keshavAdichaturviMshativyuhAya | The gadya also mentions that while Chaturmukha Brahma does the upAsana of 1. uncountable forms 2. uncountable qualities and 3. incredible qualities of Lord, while Sarasvati does 1 and 2, is bit less on 3. This should prove that Sarasvati and Bharati are not R^ijus per se (ref. Vadiraj's mail), though I doubt if their mUla rupas and incarnations have any difference. There are other interesting points of doctrine mentioned here: like there are female forms of the Lord present in each of the 36000 nADis in the left part of the body! On a different note, I had put this stotra by Yadavaryaru (whose commentary on Nyayasudha is held in high esteem) at http://www.geocities.com/kadirik/vvgadya/gadya.html long time back. The story behind this is that its author wanted to check the stability of his devotion even in an unstable state of mind. Apparently he recited this after consuming 'gasi-gasi'. A similar story is said of some advaitin chap (Appayya Dikshita) who wrote some stotra on some devataa. Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 On Monday, October 21, 2002 " Krishna K " <kadirik > > According to Sumadhva Vijaya [2\2], Narayana doesn't take any > > avatAra in the Kaliyuga. > > " naathaH kalau triyugahuutiranudbubhuuShuH " > > Which only adds to the difficulty. The statements " Srinivasa avataara > isn't avataara " and " Srinivasa=Lord " kind of do not gell well. Why not? What has Srinivasa=Lord has to do with Srinivasa avataara? For Lord Srinivasa there is no 'udbhava' nor He takes any 'special form' to fulfill any boon etc., so it is not an avatAra. > > > This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord Himself came > > > down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord in > > Vaikuntha. > > > while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible both on > > > earth and in Vaikuntha as well. > > > I don't think it means that " there was no visible form of > > the Lord in Vaikuntha " . For mukta-s and mukhyaprANa [and Ruju > > yogi-s?] he is always " visible " . > > Aren't there two vaikuNThas; one where muktas stay and one where amuktas > like Sesha etc stay? Aren't there two vaikuNThas; one where muktas > stay and one where amuktas like Sesha etc stay? I was referring to > the latter, where Vishnu was not visible to people below Bharati > Devi when he come down as Srinivasa? I am not sure --- are you referring to the one outside the seven layered [or is it nine?] VaikunTa guarded by Jaya and Vijaya? Any way, as per HarikathAmR^itasAra 1/13, " araNiyoLagippante " -- all those below Bharatidevi, have to make 'effort' to _see_ the Lord. > I shall read the articles and pose the question separately. Is this the right forum for _discussing_ such issues? > However, my bigger apprehension was regarding the > presence of these devatAs having some body outside > the brahmANDa ALSO. Why not? There is always the tattva sR^ishhTi which takes place outside brahmANDa and the brahmAnDa sR^ishhTi. > The gadya also mentions that while Chaturmukha Brahma does the upAsana > of 1. uncountable forms 2. uncountable qualities and 3. incredible > qualities of Lord, while Sarasvati does 1 and 2, is bit less on 3. This > should prove that Sarasvati and Bharati are not R^ijus per se Also, their ranking in tAratamya itself is different. > (ref. Vadiraj's mail), though I doubt if their mUla rupas > and incarnations have any difference. I don't know. > There are other interesting points of doctrine > mentioned here: like there are female forms of the > Lord present in each of the 36000 nADis in the left > part of the body! It is mentioned in the HKS nAdiprakaraNa sandhi 12\2-3 [iTRANS] bR^ihati nAmaka vAsudevanu vahisi strIpurushagaLa doshha virahita veppatteraDu sAvira nADigaLoLiddu... Regards, Meera > Regards, > Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 RE: I did not mean Sarswathi and Bharathi are rujus.What I meant was starting from Lord SriHari,Laxmi devi,Brahmadevaru/Vaydevaru and Sarswathi/Bharathi all of them have the same MulaRupa as AvataraRupa. My understanding or rather a doubt was that,do rujus also have the same MulaRupa as avatarRupa?becos I have heard abt the same in Dr.Prabhanjanacharya's Bhagavatha webcast. Kindly pardon my ignorance,if I am wrong. Vadiraj On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 Meera Tadipatri wrote : >On Monday, October 21, 2002 " Krishna K " <kadirik > > > > According to Sumadhva Vijaya [2\2], Narayana doesn't take >any > > > avatAra in the Kaliyuga. > > > " naathaH kalau triyugahuutiranudbubhuuShuH " > > > > Which only adds to the difficulty. The statements " Srinivasa >avataara > > isn't avataara " and " Srinivasa=Lord " kind of do not gell >well. > >Why not? What has Srinivasa=Lord has to do with >Srinivasa avataara? > >For Lord Srinivasa there is no 'udbhava' nor He takes any >'special form' to fulfill any boon etc., so it is not an >avatAra. > > > > > This is the reason I had thought of. and that the Lord >Himself came > > > > down, which means there was no visible form of the Lord >in > > > Vaikuntha. > > > > while in the case of other 'avatArAs', Vishnu was visible >both on > > > > earth and in Vaikuntha as well. > > > > > I don't think it means that " there was no visible form of > > > the Lord in Vaikuntha " . For mukta-s and mukhyaprANa [and >Ruju > > > yogi-s?] he is always " visible " . > > > > Aren't there two vaikuNThas; one where muktas stay and one >where amuktas > > like Sesha etc stay? Aren't there two vaikuNThas; one where >muktas > > stay and one where amuktas like Sesha etc stay? I was >referring to > > the latter, where Vishnu was not visible to people below >Bharati > > Devi when he come down as Srinivasa? > >I am not sure --- are you referring to the one outside the >seven layered [or is it nine?] VaikunTa guarded by Jaya and >Vijaya? > >Any way, as per HarikathAmR^itasAra 1/13, " araNiyoLagippante " >-- all those below Bharatidevi, have to make 'effort' to _see_ >the Lord. > > > I shall read the articles and pose the question separately. > >Is this the right forum for _discussing_ such issues? > > > However, my bigger apprehension was regarding the > > presence of these devatAs having some body outside > > the brahmANDa ALSO. > >Why not? There is always the tattva sR^ishhTi which >takes place outside brahmANDa and the brahmAnDa sR^ishhTi. > > > The gadya also mentions that while Chaturmukha Brahma does the >upAsana > > of 1. uncountable forms 2. uncountable qualities and 3. >incredible > > qualities of Lord, while Sarasvati does 1 and 2, is bit less >on 3. This > > should prove that Sarasvati and Bharati are not R^ijus per >se > >Also, their ranking in tAratamya itself is different. > > > (ref. Vadiraj's mail), though I doubt if their mUla rupas > > and incarnations have any difference. > >I don't know. > > > There are other interesting points of doctrine > > mentioned here: like there are female forms of the > > Lord present in each of the 36000 nADis in the left > > part of the body! > >It is mentioned in the HKS nAdiprakaraNa sandhi 12\2-3 >[iTRANS] >bR^ihati nAmaka vAsudevanu vahisi strIpurushagaLa doshha >virahita veppatteraDu sAvira nADigaLoLiddu... > >Regards, > >Meera > > > Regards, > > Krishna > > > > > 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.