Re : Birth Details of Shri Madhvacharya

[Guest guest]

Dear Haribhaktas,

 

The aspect of karma, it's good effects and bad ones thereof, are not applicable to Sri Hari and Lakshmi only. With reference to Lakshmi, though, this is entirely because of the abundant grace of Sri Hari itself and she cannot sustain this without his grace.

 

All others are bound by the effects of karma.

But, Most importantly, everyone must understand that Vayu Devaru has chosen upon himself the seemingly ill-effects of karma, like when he was chosen to be cursed by a rishi(kanva rishi) that he shall not be exalted in the Puranas. This was done as Vayu Mahime is not to be transgressed br everyone, only the highly deserving get it and that too according to the orders of Sri Hari.

 

Thus, all seeming ill-effects are his own choice, one cannot apply that to Jyotish-Shastra and justify the good or bad effects he has had, let alone deriving these events from his horoscope.

 

The grace of Sri Hari has and will always endow the Bhavi-Brahma with punya that no karma can dilute even a millionth part.

 

 

 

 

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 Krishna K wrote :

>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:56:20 -0800 (PST), Ramadasa Rao

><pushkara2003 wrote:

>> I have a intution that His birth might have taken place around 1-30

>> PM.Anyhow I am analysing it by many methods out of which ,one method

>> is Tattwa- Antara Tattwa method.After reading about His life history,I

>> strongly feel that He might have born during Akasha Tattwa and Tejo

>> Antara Tattwa or vice versa.Anyhow it seems HE might have born in

>> Makara Lagna with Chandra there in Shravana Nakshatra along with Guru

>> ( Vakra ) aspected by Shani and Kuja from Karkataka Rashi which is 7th

>> from Makara Lagna.

>Dear Sri Ramadas Rao avare,

>I wonder how ordinary jAtaka rules can be applied to these saints (or

>even other avatAras of the Lord). I know that there are some

>horoscopes of Rama and Krishna, and even their assessment in

>circulation, but isn't it wrong fundamentally? I mean, horoscopes and

>their interpretations might work where there is karma involved. Whence

>is karma (and its related phala) for Krishna or Rama?

>For Srimad Acharya, I am not sure what instances in his life you have

>considered, but I believe that he denies the basic human behavior in

>multiple places: eating 2000 bananas, being in a position to swiftly

>cross the mountains leaping from one to another, lifting a very large

>stone, lighting up a dark place with his toe etc. His horoscope must

>also indicate that he himself was sinless (the Brihadaranyaka

>Upanishad says this), has no ahamkara or feeling of possession towards

>his desires, possessed the 32 laxaNas (including a height of 96 inches

>i.e. 8 ft), a proportionate body of extreme muscular strength, a very

>handsome face and a commanding voice; who was very endearing to all

>including a king, not to mention his disciples. To top it all, sound

>knowledge of the vedas (and many of its shAkhAs), itihAsa, purANa,

>etymology, lithurgy, iconography... the list is endless; accompanied

>by unadulterated and constant devotion (Can a debilitated and retro

>Guru in the lagna indicate this much?). Another point of interest is

>he has not 'died' in the sense of leaving a mortal coil anywhere. He

>just disappeared! How will you construct a horoscope for such a

>personality?

>Regards,

>Krishna

>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 sadhAÂ ||

> " 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

>--

>To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to -

>--

>Visit VMS at

>http://www.madhva.org

>View the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link

>--

>

[Guest guest]

On 3 Mar 2005 09:45:15 -0000, Santosh Prasad <bs_sp wrote:

 

> All others are bound by the effects of karma.

>

> But, Most importantly, everyone must understand that Vayu Devaru has

> chosen upon himself the seemingly ill-effects of karma,

 

As such, souls at his level have very little prArabdha karma left. The

only time when Brahma experiences 'flaws' is at the time of creation,

when Brahma (or vAyu) is fraught with fear, induced by Mahalaxmi. But

never after that. No ignorance and no unhappiness in their

brahmakalpa, ever.

 

> like when he was

> chosen to be cursed by a rishi(kanva rishi) that he shall not be exalted in

> the Puranas. This was done as Vayu Mahime is not to be transgressed br

> everyone, only the highly deserving get it and that too according to the

> orders of Sri Hari.

 

Sri Vadiraja explains it differently in his prakAshika on

Shatprashnopanishad-bhAShya --

 

The curse from Kanva Rishi was that Sri Mukhyaprana will be known to

public only in his avataaras and not in his muularuupa.

 

And Sri Mukhyaprana accepted it, not as an effect of karma, but

because such a 'curse' plays an important role in the larger scheme of

things (i.e., the very purpose of creation etc is to enable

appropriate sAdhana for the three types of souls). Thus only eligible

souls will get to know him, as the only pure pratIka of the Lord (cf.

namaste vAyo, tvaM **eva** pratyakShaM brahmAsi) and thus get correct

jnaana and subsequently mokSha.

 

This is perhaps why Vyasa, Valmiki and others have extolled the

avatAras of MukhyaprANa and have not highlighted the mukhyaprANa

tattva itself, majorly (the Brahmasutra is however emphatic on the

exalted role of mukhaprANa). However, since the apaurusheya veda is

'puruSha-nirapexa' i.e., is not written by anybody (who will have a

prior knowledge of Kanva's curse), the vedas extols the mUla tattva

itself. (As can be seen in multiple Upanishads).

 

Thus, only by the grace of Srimad Anandatirtha, one can understand the

mukhaprANa tattva and thereby gain the grace of Vishnu.

 

--

This is nearly what Sri Vadiraja says. and it is only agreeable. So

many read the Upanishads and mistake the prANa tattva to bhUta vAyu

himself, despite the sUtrakAra emphasizing otherwise.

 

> Thus, all seeming ill-effects are his own choice, one cannot apply that to

> Jyotish-Shastra and justify the good or bad effects he has had, let alone

> deriving these events from his horoscope.

 

Excellent! Couldn't have said it better.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu.

 

>

>On 3 Mar 2005 09:45:15 -0000, Santosh Prasad <bs_sp wrote:

>

> > All others are bound by the effects of karma.

> >

> > But, Most importantly, everyone must understand that Vayu Devaru has

> > chosen upon himself the seemingly ill-effects of karma,

>

 

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:37:56 +0530 Krishna K <krishna.kadiri

 

>As such, souls at his level have very little prArabdha karma left. The

>only time when Brahma experiences 'flaws' is at the time of creation,

>when Brahma (or vAyu) is fraught with fear, induced by Mahalaxmi. But

>never after that. No ignorance and no unhappiness in their

>brahmakalpa, ever.

>

 

In kalpasADhana sandhi/aparOxa thArathaMya sandhi (24), padhya 35, shrI

jagannATha dAsaru

says

" j~jAna rahitha-bhayathva pElva pUrANa, dhaithyara mOhakavu, chathurAnanage

kUduvadhu mOha aj~jAna bhayashOka " (The non-existence of correct knowledge

(j~JAna rahithathva) and fear (bhayathva) that appears in pUrANa's (pElva

purANa) is dhaithya mOhanArtha - Does mOha, aj~jAna bhaya shOka exist or

apply to chathurAnana)

 

Again at padhya 38, " vArijAsana vAyu vANI bhArathigaLige mahA praLayadhi

bAradhu aj~jAnAdhi

dhOShagaLu " - Brahma, Vayu, Saraswathi & Bharathi have no aj~jAna during

pralaya.

 

There are also many other such statements in harikaThAmRuthasAra which shows

that the flaws experienced by Brahma are dhaithya mOhanArtha.

 

Shri Sankarshana Wodeyaru while explaining above concept very clearly states

that Brahma projected mOha- aj~JAna-bhaya-shOka 4 times for dhaithya

mOhanartha.

 

Thanks & Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Want to meet David Beckham? http://www.msn.co.in/gillette/ Fly to Madrid

with Gillette!

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:50:45 +0000, Prasanna Krishna

<krish_p wrote:

 

 

> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:37:56 +0530 Krishna K <krishna.kadiri

>

> >As such, souls at his level have very little prArabdha karma left. The

> >only time when Brahma experiences 'flaws' is at the time of creation,

> >when Brahma (or vAyu) is fraught with fear, induced by Mahalaxmi. But

> >never after that. No ignorance and no unhappiness in their

> >brahmakalpa, ever.

> >

 

> There are also many other such statements in harikaThAmRuthasAra which

> shows that the flaws experienced by Brahma are dhaithya mOhanArtha.

>

> Shri Sankarshana Wodeyaru while explaining above concept very clearly states

> that Brahma projected mOha- aj~JAna-bhaya-shOka 4 times for dhaithya

> mOhanartha.

 

Can you pls quote those 4 instances? That might solve the following

problem we have: Whatever I mentioned is the 'siddhAnta' that is

mentioned in Sri Vedagarbha Padmanabhasuuri's 'madhva-siddhAnta-sAra'

(see p.s) where he takes quotes from different texts of sarvamUla and

shows how to resolve any seeming differences.

 

In case of Brahma, it is asked, if he never experiences ajnAna or

dukha or bhaya, how can he be considered a jIva? ofcourse, there are

quotes, all of different purANa /pancharatra from different sarvamula

texts, that rjus don't experience these in any of their births, so one

cannot think that brahma experienced bhaya in his earlier births. In

response, some other quotes (one from bhAgavata-tAtparya niranya on

6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear and

unpleasantness at the time of creation. This is also mentioned in the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate), and corroborated in the

RgbhAShya (where Acharya says that the above Brihadaranyaka shruti

shows the flaws of unhappiness and limitedness in C.Brahma).

 

There are other instances where Brahma shows acts of ignorance for

asura-mohana: like in the case of stealing cows during

Krishna-avatara. Such are meant for asura-mohana.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

P.S. The million books archive has a scanned copy of

madhva-siddhAnta-sAra, but that is not available for download

immediately. It should be available after it is reviewed.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu!

 

> > Shri Sankarshana Wodeyaru while explaining above concept very clearly

>states

> > that Brahma projected mOha- aj~JAna-bhaya-shOka 4 times for dhaithya

> > mOhanartha.

>

>Can you pls quote those 4 instances? That might solve the following

>problem we have: Whatever I mentioned is the 'siddhAnta' that is

>mentioned in Sri Vedagarbha Padmanabhasuuri's 'madhva-siddhAnta-sAra'

>(see p.s) where he takes quotes from different texts of sarvamUla and

>shows how to resolve any seeming differences.

>

 

To be more specific, Shri Sankarshana wodeyaru says " Puranas say that Brahma

had

aj~JAna 4 times & fear twice when Brahma appeared from shrI hari's nabhi

kamala " .

Shri wodeyaru doesn't specifically mention those instances while writing

commentary for

HKS 24-35. Further to this, he explains why the fear & aj~jAna should not

be attributed to

Brahma.

 

The same thoughts are projected by shrI jambukhandi Vadirajacharya (Shri

vyAsa dAsa sidhDhAntha kaumudhi).

 

shrI jagannatha dasaru in 24-12 says

" RujugaNake bhakthyAdhi guNa ....... "

 

While explaining the inherent qualities of Ruju jIvas, shrI dasaru says as

the BraHma pada jIva

keeps moving from kalpa to kalpa the bimbOpAsana keeps increasing. He

further states that

these jIvas doesn't have vikAra because of thriguNa's at any time -

" thriguNaja vikAragaLillavemdhigu "

 

 

>In response, some other quotes (one from bhAgavata-tAtparya niranya on

>6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear and

>unpleasantness at the time of creation.

 

shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru says they are asura mOhanArtha.

 

>This is also mentioned in the

>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate), and corroborated in the

>RgbhAShya (where Acharya says that the above Brihadaranyaka shruti

>shows the flaws of unhappiness and limitedness in C.Brahma).

 

Can you please explain this further - full quotation & its meaning.

 

>

>There are other instances where Brahma shows acts of ignorance for

>asura-mohana: like in the case of stealing cows during

>Krishna-avatara. Such are meant for asura-mohana.

>

 

Agreed. There are many such instances during avatara of shrI vAyu.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Namaskara,

 

> Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

 

>P.S. The million books archive has a scanned copy of

>madhva-siddhAnta-sAra, but that is not available for >download

immediately. It should be available after it is >reviewed.

 

The link for the book (at million books archive) is

 

http://www.archive.org/details/MadhvaSiddanthaSara

 

The book is in not so common " DjVu " format and has been converted

into PDF version and is with me. If moderator approves, it can be

uploaded into this group's file section. It is huge 10MB and it can

be made multi-part RAR files for easy downloads for people with dial-

up.

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

 

Moderator Note: Dear Srinivas, Assuming there are no copyright issues because

of the time involved, please upload the file to the files section for the

benefit of the readers. Please split the files for the benefit of readers who

are on dial up lines. Thanks for this service to the readers. Please send an

e-mail to the list when the file is ready.

[Guest guest]

Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote on March 06, 2005:

 

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:50:45 +0000, Prasanna Krishna

> <krish_p wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:37:56 +0530 Krishna K <krishna.kadiri

>>

>> >As such, souls at his level have very little prArabdha karma left. The

>> >only time when Brahma experiences 'flaws' is at the time of creation,

>> >when Brahma (or vAyu) is fraught with fear, induced by Mahalaxmi. But

>> >never after that. No ignorance and no unhappiness in their

>> >brahmakalpa, ever.

>> >

>

>> There are also many other such statements in harikaThAmRuthasAra which

>> shows that the flaws experienced by Brahma are dhaithya mOhanArtha.

>>

>> Shri Sankarshana Wodeyaru while explaining above concept very clearly states

>> that Brahma projected mOha- aj~JAna-bhaya-shOka 4 times for dhaithya

>> mOhanartha.

 

Actually Odeyaru says " four times aj~nAna and twice fear " (which

also agrees with AchArya's words).

 

If it is at the beginning of the creation (no other jivAs are created

yet and so there are no daityas, having dehadhAraNa), how can it be

for daityamohana? If it is not for daityamohana, then does Brahma have

inherent fear (even it be for xaNArdha)? If vastutaH (inherently),

there is no fear for Brahma and if there are no daityas, then what

is the reason for showing aj~nAna(ignorance) or shoka(sadness) or

bhaya (fear) be it very short? Pls see below AchArya's words in

Bhagavata tAtaparyanirNaya.

 

> Can you pls quote those 4 instances? That might solve the following

> problem we have: Whatever I mentioned is the 'siddhAnta' that is

> mentioned in Sri Vedagarbha Padmanabhasuuri's 'madhva-siddhAnta-sAra'

> (see p.s) where he takes quotes from different texts of sarvamUla and

> shows how to resolve any seeming differences.

>

> In case of Brahma, it is asked, if he never experiences ajnAna or

> dukha or bhaya, how can he be considered a jIva? ofcourse, there are

> quotes, all of different purANa /pancharatra from different sarvamula

> texts, that rjus don't experience these in any of their births, so one

> cannot think that brahma experienced bhaya in his earlier births. In

> response, some other quotes (one from bhAgavata-tAtparya niranya on

> 6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear and

> unpleasantness at the time of creation. This is also mentioned in the

> Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate),

 

Here Acharya says (in the commentary):

 

" na reme sa tato brahmA tasmAdekasya no ratiH "

 

" Initially Brahma wasn't happy that he is alone. Hence one who is

alone will not be happy " .

 

This is a precursor for the creation of his wife (In respect of

dehadhAraNa).

 

In BhagavatatAtparyanirNaya (6-9-23) Acharya says:

 

" janishhyatAM janAnAM tu svabhAvAnAM prasiddhaye |

j~nAnAdiguNapUrNasya brahmaNo.api xaNArdhagAH |

bhayAdikAM bhavantIha kathaM tasmin sthirAlayAH | iti cha

bhagavatpRitaye nityaM brahmaNo ye bhayAdayaH |

na vR^ithA tasya bhAvaH syatkashchitte.api xaNArdhagAH |

aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha |

shoko.api tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h |

tatrApi bhagavatprItyA unnatyashchAsya tadbhavet.h |

iti brahmatarke "

 

" For the sake of making well known the nature of the people

who will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, ect. occur to

Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these

fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma does

every act to please the Lord. Even these xaNArdha fear, etc.

are not futile, but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma,

ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and those two times

sadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness].

Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord and

for the glory of Brahma " .

 

Then arise the natural questions -

How can showing the ignorance, fear or sadness please the Lord?

If they are not inherent in Brahma, why should they happen

at all?

 

" aj~nAnAdidoshhayuktAH samsAriNo jIvAH "

 

" Those jIvas, who are not liberated are endowed with flaws like

ignorance " .

 

Let me give a crude example. If the owner of a company makes a

rule that all the employees should stand in line to get to the

counter in cafeteria. Say, the head of that branch is exempt from

that rule. If he still stands in the line, the head will please

the owner.

 

Thus Chaturmukha Brahma, by doing svIkAra of these ignorance,

etc. (which is quite different from the natural ignorance, fear,

sadness, that the other jIvas exhibit), is pleasing the Lord,

that the prakR^itibandha effects as per the shrutis/smR^itis

are proven to be correct.

 

Thus these acts of Brahma also have a purpose.

 

In case of other jIvas, the question of svIkAra does not arise.

It is just thrust on them. " Brahma does the svIkAra " means he

does not have them inherently.

 

Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

(no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)

and bhagavatprIti.

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

Shri Keshava Rayare!

Namaskaragalu.

 

>

>Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

>(no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

>the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

>in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)

>and bhagavatprIti.

>

 

What could be the problem if we accept it as asura mOhanArtha. Though

asuras were not created by then, later after their creation shrI hari wants

them to read such statements as " braHma having

aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want them to mis-understand the capabilities

of Brahma & Ruju jIvas.

 

The commentaries of shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru very clearly

mention this as

asuramOhanArtha which definitely has to be lOkavidambana since Rujus are

free from aj~jAna,

bhaya, etc.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

The MSN Survey!

http://www.cross-tab.com/surveys/run/test.asp?sid=2026 & respid=1 Help us help

you better!

[Guest guest]

Sri Vijaydaasru in his praana dEvara mahime

says:

------------------------

------------------------

jalajaanda karatladalli , kaamba praaneshane

cheluva siite goosuga, hudukuva bage Enoo

 

sale aalochane inda , ellellidda dravya nooLpane

kulitu kapigaLa kuuda, aloochane maadiddEnoo

 

paLamaatra kaala , bhiiti illada prataapane

sulide bidaala naagi, lanke yoLu soojiga vEnoo

 

maleta mallara vairi, vijaya vithala namghri

jala jaarchane maalpa, sootra naamaka vaayu.

 

 

 

 

When you are able to see the entire Brahmaanda on your

palms, you acted as if you are in search of Sita,

 

With one glimpse when you can see the entire

universe, you sat with the monkeys and were

brooding (the where abouts of Sita)

 

WHEN YOU ARE FEARLESS EVEN FOR A SECOND,

you moved as if you are afraid like a cat in lanka,

 

enemy of the enemies(of Sri Hari) you are always

worshipping the feet of Sri Hari...

 

regards

Gururaj

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote on March 06, 2005:> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:50:45 +0000, Prasanna Krishna> <krish_p wrote:>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:37:56 +0530 Krishna K <krishna.kadiri>>>> >As such, souls at his level have very little prArabdha karma left. The>> >only time when Brahma experiences 'flaws' is at the time of creation,>> >when Brahma (or vAyu) is fraught with fear, induced by Mahalaxmi. But>> >never after that. No ignorance and no unhappiness in their>> >brahmakalpa, ever.>> >>>> There are also many other such statements in harikaThAmRuthasAra which>> shows that the flaws experienced by Brahma are dhaithya mOhanArtha.>>>> Shri Sankarshana

Wodeyaru while explaining above concept very clearly states>> that Brahma projected mOha- aj~JAna-bhaya-shOka 4 times for dhaithya>> mOhanartha.Actually Odeyaru says "four times aj~nAna and twice fear" (whichalso agrees with AchArya's words).If it is at the beginning of the creation (no other jivAs are createdyet and so there are no daityas, having dehadhAraNa), how can it befor daityamohana? If it is not for daityamohana, then does Brahma haveinherent fear (even it be for xaNArdha)? If vastutaH (inherently),there is no fear for Brahma and if there are no daityas, then whatis the reason for showing aj~nAna(ignorance) or shoka(sadness) orbhaya (fear) be it very short? Pls see below AchArya's words inBhagavata tAtaparyanirNaya.> Can you pls quote those 4 instances? That might solve the following> problem we have: Whatever I mentioned is the 'siddhAnta' that is> mentioned in Sri Vedagarbha

Padmanabhasuuri's 'madhva-siddhAnta-sAra'> (see p.s) where he takes quotes from different texts of sarvamUla and> shows how to resolve any seeming differences.>> In case of Brahma, it is asked, if he never experiences ajnAna or> dukha or bhaya, how can he be considered a jIva? ofcourse, there are> quotes, all of different purANa /pancharatra from different sarvamula> texts, that rjus don't experience these in any of their births, so one> cannot think that brahma experienced bhaya in his earlier births. In> response, some other quotes (one from bhAgavata-tAtparya niranya on> 6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear and> unpleasantness at the time of creation. This is also mentioned in the> Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate),Here Acharya says (in the commentary):"na reme sa tato brahmA tasmAdekasya no ratiH""Initially Brahma wasn't happy that he

is alone. Hence one who isalone will not be happy".This is a precursor for the creation of his wife (In respect ofdehadhAraNa).In BhagavatatAtparyanirNaya (6-9-23) Acharya says:"janishhyatAM janAnAM tu svabhAvAnAM prasiddhaye |j~nAnAdiguNapUrNasya brahmaNo.api xaNArdhagAH |bhayAdikAM bhavantIha kathaM tasmin sthirAlayAH | iti chabhagavatpRitaye nityaM brahmaNo ye bhayAdayaH |na vR^ithA tasya bhAvaH syatkashchitte.api xaNArdhagAH |aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha |shoko.api tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h |tatrApi bhagavatprItyA unnatyashchAsya tadbhavet.h |iti brahmatarke""For the sake of making well known the nature of the peoplewho will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, ect. occur toBrahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can thesefear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma doesevery act to please the Lord. Even these xaNArdha fear, etc.are not futile,

but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma,ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and those two timessadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness].Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord andfor the glory of Brahma".Then arise the natural questions -How can showing the ignorance, fear or sadness please the Lord?If they are not inherent in Brahma, why should they happenat all?"aj~nAnAdidoshhayuktAH samsAriNo jIvAH""Those jIvas, who are not liberated are endowed with flaws likeignorance".Let me give a crude example. If the owner of a company makes arule that all the employees should stand in line to get to thecounter in cafeteria. Say, the head of that branch is exempt fromthat rule. If he still stands in the line, the head will pleasethe owner.Thus Chaturmukha Brahma, by doing svIkAra of these ignorance,etc. (which is quite different from the natural ignorance,

fear,sadness, that the other jIvas exhibit), is pleasing the Lord,that the prakR^itibandha effects as per the shrutis/smR^itisare proven to be correct.Thus these acts of Brahma also have a purpose.In case of other jIvas, the question of svIkAra does not arise.It is just thrust on them. "Brahma does the svIkAra" means hedoes not have them inherently.Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana(no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for beingin the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)and bhagavatprIti.Regards,Kesava Rao> KrishnanAham 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 --To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - --Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.orgView the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link--

Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:17:49 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

 

> Actually Odeyaru says " four times aj~nAna and twice fear " (which

> also agrees with AchArya's words).

 

This is in the quote you mention below: aj~nAnaM chaturvAraM.

 

> If it is at the beginning of the creation (no other jivAs are created

> yet and so there are no daityas, having dehadhAraNa), how can it be

> for daityamohana? If it is not for daityamohana, then does Brahma have

> inherent fear (even it be for xaNArdha)?

 

The Madhva-siddhanta-sAra uses this idea of xaNArdha for reconciling

statements which ascribe fear and ignorance to Brahma, and those that

deny such flaws. He says that the fear and ignorance in other devatas

like Rudra are 'sthira' (i.e., stay for a while) while in Brahma it is

xaNArdha (half of an instant?), which is insignificant.

 

> > 6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear and

> > unpleasantness at the time of creation. This is also mentioned in the

> > Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate),

 

> Here Acharya says (in the commentary):

 

...

 

> " For the sake of making well known the nature of the people

> who will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, ect. occur to

> Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these

> fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma does

> every act to please the Lord. Even these xaNArdha fear, etc.

> are not futile, but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma,

> ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and those two times

> sadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness].

> Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord and

> for the glory of Brahma " .

 

> Thus these acts of Brahma also have a purpose.

 

Yes. Additionally, if Brahma's mohana at this point was simply meant

for asuramohAna and if it were not to be a matter of fact, Srimad

Acharya wouldn't use the instances of 'sa.bhibhed.h' and 'na reme' in

his RgbhAshya to show flaws in Brahma (See

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2004-October/000155.html

) .

 

> Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

> (no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

> the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

> in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)

> and bhagavatprIti.

 

What is the meaning of the word 'loka-viDambana' ? Is it same as

saying 'it reflects, represents, imitates the behavior of

baddha-jiivas? I was wondering if there is some connotation of

'illusion' to it. Hope not.

 

Also, what are the instances of asura-mohana from Brahma's acts?

Stealing cows during Krishna-avatara?

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:49:30 +0000, Prasanna Krishna

<krish_p wrote:

 

> What could be the problem if we accept it as asura mOhanArtha.

 

As I mentioned in my other mail, Srimad Acharya uses this instance of

Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in Brahma (the link is also

posted there). Obviously we don't want to hold that Srimad Acharya is

subject to asura-mohana (in fact, that would be sva-vachana-virodha).

 

> Though

> asuras were not created by then, later after their creation shrI hari wants

> them to read such statements as " braHma having

> aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want them to mis-understand the capabilities

> of Brahma & Ruju jIvas.

 

If that were to be the case, it implies that though such an incident

did not actually happen, it is only the case of purANa telling us.

Puranas can be mohanArtha, but not Shruti. The fear / non-enjoyment of

Brahma comes from Shruti. How can Shruti (which is eternal) tell us

that, then?

 

> The commentaries of shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru very clearly

> mention this as asuramOhanArtha which definitely has to be lOkavidambana

> since Rujus are free from aj~jAna, bhaya, etc.

 

Can you pls quote the exact words of Sri Wodeyaru and Sri Jambhukhandi

Acharyaru?

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Prasanna Krishna wrote on March 07, 2005 :

 

Namaskaragalu Prasanna avare,

 

>>Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

>>(no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

>>the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

>>in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)

>>and bhagavatprIti.

>>

> What could be the problem if we accept it as asura mOhanArtha. Though asuras

> were not created by then, later after their creation shrI hari wants them to

> read such statements as " braHma having aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want

> them to mis-understand the capabilities of Brahma & Ruju jIvas.

 

There are two reasons for that.

 

1. Acharya's words are paramapramANa and they don't conflict with

other Agamic pramANa's

 

2. There are other instances where acharya quoted situations like

Bhima and HanumAn and mentioned that it is for Asura Mohana.

 

MBTN says

 

" tasmAd.h bhImo dharmavR^iddhyarthameva svIye rUpe.apyanyavad.h vR^ittimeva |

pradarshayAmAsa tathA.asurANAM mohAyaivAshaktavachchhaktirUpaH || 22-276 "

 

Though Bima is powerful (shakti rUpa), he pretended to be weaker than

his own another form (Hanuman) for Asuramohana.

 

If you notice, the Lord does not even pretend any flaw in mUlarUpa.

In avatAras, He pretends for Asuramohana. Vayu in avatArarUpa pretended

for Asuramohana. Brahma in his mUlarUpa itself pretended (Brahma does

not take avatAra).

 

Now your words and my words are in agreement in the sense

that Brahma(and Vayu) only pretend, but they don't have the flaws.

I presume that the discussion is more on " what the reasons are " .

Acharya's words and Sri Vijayadasaru's words (who faithfully agrees with

the Acharya) also reflect the same (that they pretend only and they

don't have those flaws). In your own words

 

" >later after their creation shrI hari wants them to

> read such statements as " braHma having aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want

> them to mis-understand the capabilities of Brahma & Ruju jIvas " .

 

This means in these instances it is an indirect cause only.

Brahma acted like that to please the Lord. These incidents go into

purANa. The asuras read them and they get moha and that enables

their sAdhana to progress. This again pleases Sri Hari.

 

> The commentaries of shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru very clearly

> mention this as asuramOhanArtha which definitely has to be lOkavidambana

> since Rujus are free from aj~jAna, bhaya, etc.

 

Sri JagannAthadAsaru and also Odeyaru in his comentary tell the same.

 

Note : j~nAnarahita bhayatva peLda purANa daityara mohakavu...

SrinivAsana prItigosuga tordanalladale ...HarikathAmR^itasAra 23-35

 

The immediate cause is only " SrinivAsana prIti " .

Then come the purANas, which will lead to daityamohana. That will be

secondary and subsequent cause.

 

Odeyaru in the commentary says " asuraranna mohisi avarige

Aj~nAnAbhivR^iddhi mADuvudu srInivAsage prItikaravAdaddu. AdakaDi

yinda devara Aj~nAnusAra torisovarAdare hortu brahmage aj~nAnAdi

doshhavU illa. tadvat R^ijugaLigU illa " .

 

This is a little difficult subject and I hope the readers read

it carefully before jumping into rash conclusions. Sri VijayadAsaru

does not say any thing against these principles.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:49:30 +0000, Prasanna Krishna

> <krish_p wrote:

>

> > What could be the problem if we accept it as asura mOhanArtha.

>

> As I mentioned in my other mail, Srimad Acharya uses this instance of

> Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in Brahma (the link is also

> posted there). Obviously we don't want to hold that Srimad Acharya is

> subject to asura-mohana (in fact, that would be sva-vachana-virodha).

>

> > Though

> > asuras were not created by then, later after their creation shrI hari wants

> > them to read such statements as " braHma having

> > aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want them to mis-understand the capabilities

> > of Brahma & Ruju jIvas.

>

> If that were to be the case, it implies that though such an incident

> did not actually happen, it is only the case of purANa telling us.

> Puranas can be mohanArtha, but not Shruti. The fear / non-enjoyment of

> Brahma comes from Shruti. How can Shruti (which is eternal) tell us

> that, then?

>

 

Also, refer to BSB, " atrittvAdhikaraNa " AchArya madhva quotes under the

sootra , " Om prakaraNAccha Om "

 

" tatra samvastaram nAma brahmANam asrijat prabhuhu |

tadattum vyAdadAdAsyam tadAsou virurAva ha |

atha tat kripayA vishNuh srishTi-karmaNi-ayOjayat |

sO asrijat bhuvanam vishwam adyArtham harayE vibhuhu || iti brahma-vaivartE ||

 

Regards,

Jay N.

[Guest guest]

Hi..

 

I thought it is good time to clear off my doubts.

 

I would like to mention some of the sentences from Vyasateertha's

Vayu Gadya... " ....Bhagavat preetyartha Agnana shoka Bhayayaaya... "

......Paraakrutha Paramotsaahavarjitaatirikta shoka

sanghaaya.. " " ...Atyalpa Rajastamskaaya...Ap tejo vayu roopa

shareerakaya... "

 

 

I have also heard that...The agnana\ignorance in Mukhyaprana,

C.Brahma, and their consorts are as in a Dagdha Patala..a burnt

screen...where as Laxmi is unadultrated gnana.

 

These seem to say that Mukhyaprana has a dosha called

as " Paramotsaaha Varjana " . What does this dosha mean?

 

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

 

, Krishna K

<krishna.kadiri@g...> wrote:

>

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:17:49 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao@h...>

wrote:

>

> > Actually Odeyaru says " four times aj~nAna and twice fear " (which

> > also agrees with AchArya's words).

>

> This is in the quote you mention below: aj~nAnaM chaturvAraM.

>

> > If it is at the beginning of the creation (no other jivAs are

created

> > yet and so there are no daityas, having dehadhAraNa), how can it

be

> > for daityamohana? If it is not for daityamohana, then does

Brahma have

> > inherent fear (even it be for xaNArdha)?

>

> The Madhva-siddhanta-sAra uses this idea of xaNArdha for

reconciling

> statements which ascribe fear and ignorance to Brahma, and those

that

> deny such flaws. He says that the fear and ignorance in other

devatas

> like Rudra are 'sthira' (i.e., stay for a while) while in Brahma

it is

> xaNArdha (half of an instant?), which is insignificant.

>

> > > 6th skandha) are given to say that Brahma did experience fear

and

> > > unpleasantness at the time of creation. This is also mentioned

in the

> > > Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (sa ekAkI na ramate),

>

> > Here Acharya says (in the commentary):

>

> ..

>

> > " For the sake of making well known the nature of the people

> > who will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, ect. occur to

> > Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these

> > fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma does

> > every act to please the Lord. Even these xaNArdha fear, etc.

> > are not futile, but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma,

> > ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and those two times

> > sadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness].

> > Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord and

> > for the glory of Brahma " .

>

> > Thus these acts of Brahma also have a purpose.

>

> Yes. Additionally, if Brahma's mohana at this point was simply

meant

> for asuramohAna and if it were not to be a matter of fact, Srimad

> Acharya wouldn't use the instances of 'sa.bhibhed.h' and 'na reme'

in

> his RgbhAshya to show flaws in Brahma (See

> http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2004-

October/000155.html

> ) .

>

> > Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

> > (no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

> > the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

> > in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear,

etc.)

> > and bhagavatprIti.

>

> What is the meaning of the word 'loka-viDambana' ? Is it same as

> saying 'it reflects, represents, imitates the behavior of

> baddha-jiivas? I was wondering if there is some connotation of

> 'illusion' to it. Hope not.

>

> Also, what are the instances of asura-mohana from Brahma's acts?

> Stealing cows during Krishna-avatara?

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu.

 

Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote

>Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:41:04 +0530

>

> > What could be the problem if we accept it as asura mOhanArtha.

 

It was in response to shrI Keshava Raoji mail where he said it is not for

asura-mOhanArtha

(if I understood it correctly).

 

>As I mentioned in my other mail, Srimad Acharya uses this instance of

>Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in Brahma (the link is also

>posted there). Obviously we don't want to hold that Srimad Acharya is

>subject to asura-mohana (in fact, that would be sva-vachana-virodha).

>

 

> > The commentaries of shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru very

>clearly

> > mention this as asuramOhanArtha which definitely has to be lOkavidambana

> > since Rujus are free from aj~jAna, bhaya, etc.

>

>Can you pls quote the exact words of Sri Wodeyaru and Sri Jambhukhandi

>Acharyaru?

>

 

I will try to post the commentary as is (in Baraha format) so that there is

no mis-communication.

shrI Jambukhandi AchAryaru provides more information quoting different

scriptures.

 

>Regards,

>Krishna

>

 

_______________

Want to meet David Beckham? http://www.msn.co.in/gillette/ Fly to Madrid

with Gillette!

[Guest guest]

shrI Keshava Rayare!

Namaskaragalu.

 

As I said in my earlier posting, I will try to post the baraha version of

commentaries of shrI wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru. It would be

good if you can translate these into English.

 

 

> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:04:52 -0500

>

>

>Sri JagannAthadAsaru and also Odeyaru in his comentary tell the same.

>

>Note : j~nAnarahita bhayatva peLda purANa daityara mohakavu...

>SrinivAsana prItigosuga tordanalladale ...HarikathAmR^itasAra 23-35

>

>The immediate cause is only " SrinivAsana prIti " .

>Then come the purANas, which will lead to daityamohana. That will be

>secondary and subsequent cause.

>

>Odeyaru in the commentary says " asuraranna mohisi avarige

>Aj~nAnAbhivR^iddhi mADuvudu srInivAsage prItikaravAdaddu. AdakaDi

>yinda devara Aj~nAnusAra torisovarAdare hortu brahmage aj~nAnAdi

>doshhavU illa. tadvat R^ijugaLigU illa " .

>

As you rightly said for Ruju jIvas the first & foremost & intrinsic &

primary aspect of any kArya is pleasing shrI hari. Other things follow this

as required.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Screensavers unlimited! http://www.msn.co.in/Download/screensaver/ Download

now!

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:04:52 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

 

Dear Sri Keshava Rao garu,

 

> Now your words and my words are in agreement in the sense

> that Brahma(and Vayu) only pretend, but they don't have the flaws.

> I presume that the discussion is more on " what the reasons are " .

 

I am now confused regarding your opinion on this matter. As far as

Brahma goes, in this particular case of fear and non-enjoyment at the

time of creation, I don't think there is any pretense. It is actual

and for real, but for half of an instant (and thereby not sthira) and

in a 'sviikaara' mode, unlike other jiivas. That these are flaws is

said by none other than Srimad Acharya in his Rgbhaashya (read the

line 'doShAnvaktishruti.. in the tAratamya-samarthana section).

 

Regarding Sri Wodeyaru and Sri Jambhukhandi Acharya's commentaries, I

will still wait for them. My hunch in the absence of access to them is

that, these incidents create asura-mohana in getting asuras to think

that these flaws are sthira and that they are inherent to Brahma and

other Rjus.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I think, " Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in

Brahma(himself) " ... means something like this.

 

The Ruju ganastha jeevas are of a very high standard

compared to other jeevas, Brahma and Bhavi Brahma are

the kings of such jeevarashis.

 

They would always want to be in deep meditation or

samadhi of Sri Hari (as if they are not doing that

always) and always please Sri Hari in all actions.

 

This is exemplified by some of the instances in the

avataras of MukhyaPrana.

 

1.) When Ramachandra, asked his wife to present a

pearl necklace to the person whom she considered as

most faithful and sincere, without a doubt she

presented it to Srimadaacharya. Being very pleased

with him Rama asked Srimadaacharya to ask a boon, and

Srimadaacharya asked him for more devotion towards

him(Mentioned in the I chapter of Madhva Vijaya as

" Nanu saa Viraktihi " ).

 

2.) Bheema didnt accept Hidimba when she proposed,

since his elder brother was still unmarried(A younger

brother getting married before the elder brother would

be called as a Parivitti). But When Vedavyasa appeared

and asked him to marry, he accepted without any

further argument. During the end of Drona parva, when

Ashwatthama hurled the Narayanaaastra against the

Pandavas, everyone else in accordance with Krishna's

advice, put down their weapons and succumbed to the

Missile, but for Bheema. Srimadaacharya's principle is

" Devotion towards God, only for God's sake and not for

saving own life "

 

3.) Srimadacharya, when went to Badari to meet the

Sutrakara for the first time, didnt want to return

back and wanted to continue to serve the Lord. But

upon his aagnaa he returned back to give the sajjivas

his Sarvamoola granthas.

 

In all the above instances, it shows that Mukhyaprana

doesnt want to do anything but to serve/think about

God. Which I think is a flaw called as " Paramotsaaha

Varjana " He is not enthusiastic towards anything but

God.

 

But to please God, he continues to breathe through

every jeeva, protects sajjivas like the Gods inferior

to him and all that.

 

Chaturmukha Brahma is no different to MukhyaPrana(A

bit superior due to his posting...Like the difference

between Shesha and Rudra).

 

Hence Chaturmukha Brahma for the fear of showing his

weakness of Paramotsaaha Varjana, does accept God's

will in the beginning and begins to procreate the

Worlds which we seem to know and not know of.

 

The aforementioned fear is not be read as the normal

fear.

Its the same fear that everybody has. Somebody doesnt

want their weaknesses to come into light, even infront

of the ones who know about it.

 

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

 

 

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:49:30 +0000, Prasanna

> Krishna

> > <krish_p wrote:

> >

> > > What could be the problem if we accept it as

> asura mOhanArtha.

> >

> > As I mentioned in my other mail, Srimad Acharya

> uses this instance of

> > Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in Brahma

> (the link is also

> > posted there). Obviously we don't want to hold

> that Srimad Acharya is

> > subject to asura-mohana (in fact, that would be

> sva-vachana-virodha).

> >

> > > Though

> > > asuras were not created by then, later after

> their creation shrI hari wants

> > > them to read such statements as " braHma having

> > > aj~JAna & bhaya " in puranas and want them to

> mis-understand the capabilities

> > > of Brahma & Ruju jIvas.

> >

> > If that were to be the case, it implies that

> though such an incident

> > did not actually happen, it is only the case of

> purANa telling us.

> > Puranas can be mohanArtha, but not Shruti. The

> fear / non-enjoyment of

> > Brahma comes from Shruti. How can Shruti (which is

> eternal) tell us

> > that, then?

> >

>

> Also, refer to BSB, " atrittvAdhikaraNa " AchArya

> madhva quotes under the sootra , " Om prakaraNAccha

> Om "

>

> " tatra samvastaram nAma brahmANam asrijat prabhuhu |

> tadattum vyAdadAdAsyam tadAsou virurAva ha |

> atha tat kripayA vishNuh srishTi-karmaNi-ayOjayat |

> sO asrijat bhuvanam vishwam adyArtham harayE vibhuhu

> || iti brahma-vaivartE ||

>

> Regards,

> Jay N.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu!

 

Herewith attaching the .gif file containing the commentary of Shri wodeyaru

on padhya 35 of kalpasADhana/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi. Also attaching

baraha 2000a v. text if in case the gif doesn't reach due to

limitations.

 

I shall send shrI jambukhandi AchAryara commentary in my next mail.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

 

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

______________

 

j~JAna rahitha bhayathva pELva pu |

rANa dhaithyara mOhakavu chathu |

rAnanage koduvudhe mOhAj~JAna bhaya shOka ||

bhAnumamdala chalisidhamdhadhi |

kANuvudhu dhRugdhOShadhimdhali |

shrInivAsana prIthigOsuga thOrdhanalladhale ||

 

[kalpasADhana samDhi/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi (24) - padhya (35)]

 

--- shrI samkarShaNa wodeyara vyAkhyAna ---

 

braHmadhEvarige kAlavishEShadhalli aj~JAna, bhaya amdhare, padhmanAbha

dhEvara nAbhIkamaladhimdha janisidhAgge, braHmadhEvarige nAlku bAri

aj~JAnavU, eradu bAri bhayavU prApthavAyithemdhu pELathakka purANagatha

EkadhEshavAkyagaLu, dhaithyara svarUpasvabhAva dhOSharUpa vAdhdharimdha, A

svarUpAnusAra avarige sADhanavAgabEku; braHmadhEvaralli viparItha thiLidha

horathu, asurarige sADhani pUrthi AgOdhilla Adhdharimdha,

braHmadhEvarAdharU, thamage limgadhEhavadhe (dhagDhapatadhamthe

akAryakAriyAgi j~JAnathirODhAnamAdathakkadhdhalla), AdharU, limgadhEha

idhdhaMyAle, thathkArya akAryakAriyAgi pradharshana mAdabEkAgi

thOrisOvarAdharE horthu, mOha, aj~JAna, bhaya, dhu:kha braHma dhEvarige

hELONavembudhu kUduvudhE? emdhare, nEthradhOShadhimdha sUryamamdalavannu

maDhyAHnakAladhalli dhRuShtisi nOdidhare, A mamdala chakrAkAravAgi

chalisidhOpAdhiyalli nOdathakkava kANaththAne. ivana kaNNige hAmge

kamdithE horthu, mamdalavEnU chalisalilla. thadhvath, asurara

aj~JAnadhOShadhimdha avarige hAmge thOrathadhe horthu, braHmadhEvarige

aj~JAnAdhi dhOShavilla. asuraranna mOhisi, avarige aj~JAnAbhivRudhDhi

mAduvadhu - shrInivAsanige prIthikaravAdhadhdhu. Adha kadiyimdha, dhEvara

Aj~JAnusAra thOrisuvarAdhare horthu, braHma dhEvarige dhOShavu illa.

thadhvath, RujugaLigU illa.

------------------------

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

 

_______________

Apply to over 75,000 jobs now.

http://www.naukri.com/tieups/tieups.php?othersrcp=736 Post your CV on

naukri.com today.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu.

 

> " PACIFIC " <bgargesh

>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:47:58 -0000

>

>I would like to mention some of the sentences from Vyasateertha's

>Vayu Gadya... " ....Bhagavat preetyartha Agnana shoka Bhayayaaya... "

>.....Paraakrutha Paramotsaahavarjitaatirikta shoka

>sanghaaya.. " " ...Atyalpa Rajastamskaaya...Ap tejo vayu roopa

>shareerakaya... "

>

 

The vAkyAs of j~JAnis do not differ and the above is the proof where shrI

vyAsathIrTharu

very clearly mentions what shrI jagannATha dhAsaru has said in HKS.

 

>

>I have also heard that...The agnana\ignorance in Mukhyaprana,

>C.Brahma, and their consorts are as in a Dagdha Patala..a burnt

>screen...where as Laxmi is unadultrated gnana.

>

 

A jIva is bound in this samsAra (ignorance/dukha/bhaya/shOka, cyle of

births/deaths, etc.) due to limga dhEha. limga dhEha is thriguNAthmaka.

For Ruju jIvas/Ruju pathnis, this limga dhEha is like dhagDha pata (it is

there since Ruju's are also jIvas (xara's) but absolutely has no impact).

 

Since there is no impact of limga dhEha in Ruju jIvas, there is no

aj~JAna/ignorance in Ruju jIvas.

 

>These seem to say that Mukhyaprana has a dosha called

>as " Paramotsaaha Varjana " . What does this dosha mean?

>

>

 

shrI jagannATha dhAsaru in HKS 24-34 (aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi) says

 

mahitha RujugaNakomdhe paramO |

thsaha vivarjithavemba dhOShavu |

vihithavE sari, idhanu pEldhire muktha braHmarige |

bahudhu sAmyavu, j~JAna bhakuthiyu |

dhruhiNa padha pariyamtha vRudhDhiyu |

bahirupAsane umtanamthara bimbadharshanavu ||

 

For the Ruju gaNa paramOthsaha vivarjithathva is there. paramOthsaha is the

utmost bliss that a Ruju jIva can enjoy. In case of amuktha sRujya mukthas

(200 in Number - at any time there are 200 Rujus in sRushti), this utmost

bliss would not be there. If we say that it is there then a muktha braHma

and amuktha braHma would get sAmya (equality) and hence we should accept

this difference.

 

 

>Thanks

>

>Regards

>Bharath

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Meet your life partner on BharatMatrimony.com

http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Join FREE!

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu.

 

> " Bharath Gargesh B.P " <bgargesh

>Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:43:36 -0800 (PST)

>

>

>In all the above instances, it shows that Mukhyaprana

>doesnt want to do anything but to serve/think about

>God. Which I think is a flaw called as " Paramotsaaha

>Varjana " He is not enthusiastic towards anything but

>God.

>

 

How can serving/thinking of shrI hari is considered paramOthsAha varjana.

As the name indicates, parama uthsAha (utmost bliss - any better word of

uthsAha is welcome)

is what is lacking in braHma which is considered as dhOSha but for Rujus

this dhOSha is not an

hindrance for sADhana. In my other posting I have given some inputs on

this.

 

>

>Hence Chaturmukha Brahma for the fear of showing his

>weakness of Paramotsaaha Varjana, does accept God's

>will in the beginning and begins to procreate the

>Worlds which we seem to know and not know of.

>

 

Probably the inforamtion provided on paramOthsAha may clarify your

doubt/stand.

 

>

>Regards

>Bharath

>

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Make money with Zero Investment.

http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/4686-26272-10936-31?ck=RegSell Start your

business.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu!

 

Herewith attaching the .gif file containing the commentary of Shri

jambukhandi AchArya

on padhya 35 of kalpasADhana/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi. Also attaching

baraha 2000a v. text if in case the gif doesn't reach due to

limitations.

 

Please excuse me for any typos in my editing or in the book itself. Please

correct them & let this group know of those typos.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

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

-------

 

j~JAna rahitha bhayathva pELva pu |

rANa dhaithyara mOhakavu chathu |

rAnanage koduvudhe mOhAj~JAna bhaya shOka ||

bhAnumamdala chalisidhamdhadhi |

kANuvudhu dhRugdhOShadhimdhali |

shrInivAsana prIthigOsuga thOrdhanalladhale ||

 

[kalpasADhana samDhi/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi (24) - padhya (35)]

 

--- shrI jambukhamdi vAdhirAjAchAryara vyAkhyAna ---

 

 

ranu prAkRuthavath aj~JAna bhaya shOkAdhyA: api braHmaNa: shrUyamthE - "

aj~JAnam thu chathurvAram " - ithi purANAdhau || atha: kaTham RujuthA?

kaTham mAm thathsamgathA ithyatha Aha - " j~JAna " ithi || pralayEpyavilOpa

sRuthau kaTham thathsambhava:? " vAyOrmamapralayE SruShtikAlE thaThA

gAyathryA: nAsthinAsthyEva mOha: " || nanu thadhA bhayajanakA bhAvAth,

thaThAthvEpi sRuthau haribhaxaNa, kaitabhAdhyupadhravAdhE: sathvAth yujyathE

bhayAdhikamithi chEth na || asuramOhanArTham thaThAdharshanAdhyupapaththE:

|| nirnimiththam kimarTham thEShAm mOhanam? ithi chEth svAmi prIthyarTham

ithi vadhAma: " mamAj~JAnam dhRushyathE yathra kuthra dhaithyAnAm mOhanArTham

sadhaiva|| thEna prIthi dhEva dhEvasya viShNO: bhaviShyathIthyEva

vinishchithAthma " || - ithi vachanAth || aj~JAnam shOkAdhyupalaxaNaM ||

nanvidhamEva mOhakam kim nasyAth|| Evam cha phalithamasmanmanO

raThadhrumENa|| ithichEth maivaM|| paramasAthvikathvEna gaNathEnaiva

mukthirithi parihArE sThithEpi brUma: samADhyamtharaM || EkAdhasha

bhAgavathE braHmaNa: sanakAdhi prathrAj~JAna prakaraNE mOhamupalaxaNE

kRuthya AchAryai: pramANaj~JAnAdharidhrai: rIthyamtharam uktham mAnamudhA

haradhbhi " bhramathi mana: kvApi braHmaNO: viShNumAyayA sarvaj~JasyApi

thathrAthmA vakthumichchEjjanArdhana: || thath j~JAthvA chimthitham tharya

chimthayathyamumEvathu || na svayam chimthayathyarTham sa hithadhbhAvith

sadhA|| anyEthvaj~JAna samyukthA: mOhamIyuryaThAkramamAthasya maDhyamdhinE

sUryE xObhavath xObhamAthrakaM || naivAj~JAnam yaThA sUryE thamashchApi

kaTham chana|| ithi bhAvavivEka ithi || " prashnAdhInajjavath karaNam

mOhanAyaDhamanAM " - ithyukthE: pUrvagathimEvAshnuvathE || shravaNamapyEvam

harE: prIthyarTham, nishayArTham sathAm hIthi prayOjanayathravath || nanu

mUlarUpa syaivamapyavathArE abhidhaDhathi j~JAnasyAparOxasya varjanaM ||

vachanAni - " braHmaNasthvamsharUpEShu bhArathyA: j~JAnavarjanaM || avathArE

thu bhArathyA: kadhAchith j~JAnavarjanaM || aparOxathirObhAva: " -

ithyAdhIni, " athO gAyathrIvath bhArathIM || ithyAdhInyapi mUlarUpaparANIthi

vakthu muchithamithi chEth na " thadhIshvarEchChayaivaixath ||

yadhIShaththanthAsthyevEthi vAchyaM || " thAvanmAthrENa chAj~JAnam thasya

naivahi chimthayEth || bhArathyAsthu yadhA nAsthi sarasvathyAsthu kim puna:

|| ithyAdhinA thaThyAvagamAth ithi yathkimchidhEthath ||

 

 

--- kannada anuvAdha ---

 

prAkRuthapuruSharige iruvamthe, braHmadhEvarige aj~JAna bhaya

shOkagaLiruvavemdhu - " aj~JAnam thu chathurvAram " - I mumthAdha shRuthigaLu

hELuththave. Adhudharimdha, Rujuthvavu hEge? - adhu samgathavAguvudhu hEge?

I AxEpavannu pariharisuvudhalOsuga - " j~JAnarahitha " - I padhyavannu

hELiruththare.

 

praLayadhalliyU saha, aj~JAna mumthAdhuvugaLilladhiruvAga, sRuShTiyalli hEge

sambhavisuvuvu? nanagU, vAyuvigU gAyathrI (sarasvathi) dhEvigU praLaya

sRuShtikAlagaLalliyU mOhaviruvudhE illa " - hIge pramANaviruththadhe.

 

innu, praLayadhalli bhayajanakavAvudhU illavAdhudharimdha, bhaya

mumthAdhuvugaLu iralikkilla. Adhare, sRuShtiyAdha anamthara, hariyu

" thannannu numguvudhu-kaitabhAdhigaLa upadhrava " - I mumthAdha

bhayagaLiruththave, Adhudharimdha, samsArAvasTheyalli bhayAdhigaLiruvudhu

yuktha vAgabahudhu. hIge shamkisabAradhu. yAkemdhare, asurarannu

mOhisuvudhakkU saha bhayAdhigaLannu thOrisuvudharimdha, A

vRuththAmthagaLannu homdhisabahudhu.

 

nimiththavilladhE avarannu mOhisuvudhEke? hIge shamkisabahudhu. Adhare,

avarannu mOhisuvudhu - svAmi shrI hariya prIthige kAraNavAguvudhu, hIge

uththaravannu hELuththEve.

 

elliyAdharU nanage aj~JAnavu kamdu thiLidhu bamdhudhAdhare, adhu

dhaithyarannu mOhisuvudhakkOskaravemdhE thiLiyabEku " . hAge

dhaithyamOhanadhimdha shrIhariya prIthiyAguvudhemba nishchayadhimdhalE

avarannu mOhisuvudhu " . hIge vachanagaLiruththave. " aj~JAnam " - emba

mAthinimdha shOka mumthAdhavugaLannu samgrahisabEku.

 

innu idhE Eke mOhakavenisabAradhu? hIgAdhalli, namma manOraThavu

phalithavAguththadhe - emdhu shamkisabAradhu. yAkemdharE

paramasAthvikarAdhudharimdha, avara aj~JAnapradharshavu dhaithya

mOhakavemdhu hELuvudhu sari. hIgidhdharU, innU omdhu samADhAnavannu

bhAgavatha dhashamaskamDhadha thAthparyadhalli hELiruththAre. " paramAthmana

ichCheyimdha, ommomme braHmadhEvara manassU bhramisidhamthe thOruththadhe,

braHmadhEvaru sarvaj~Jaru. AdharU, paramAthmana ichCheyannu thiLidhu,

adharamthe braHmadhEvaru paramAthmanannu chimthisuththare. braHmadhEvaru

paramAthmana bhAvavannu sadhA thiLidhiruththAre. Adhudharimdha,

paramAthmana chiththadhamthe anuvarthisuththAre. mikkavaru aj~JAna

sambamDha uLLavaru, braHmadhEvara keLaginavarAdha rudhrAdhi dhEvathegaLu

kramadhimdha mOhavannu homdhuththAre - hIge bhAvavivEka gramThadhalli

hELalAgidhe " emdhu sanakAdhigaLa prashnege samshayavannu thiLisuva

samdharbhadhalli hELiruththAre. braHmadhEvana j~JAnavu maDhyAHna

sUryanamthe iruvudhu. svalpa aj~JAnavU yAva rIthiyalliyU mOhavilla " - emdhu

adharalli nirUpithavAgidhe.

 

 

adharamthe aj~Jaramthe prashnisuvudhu - I mumthAdhuvugaLU saha aDhamajanara

(thAmasara) mOhanakkAgiyE - emdhu hELiruvudharimdha, himdhina gathiyannE

thiLiyabEku. adharamthe, shravaNavu hariya prIthigAgi sajjanara

nishchayakkAgi " - hIge mUru prayOjanagaLannu thiLiyabEku.

 

innu " mUlarUpadhalli aj~JAnagaLilladhirali. avathAragaLalli mAthra avara

aparOxa j~JAnavu thirOhithavAguththadhemdhu vachanagaLu hELuththave " -

braHmadhEvarige amsharUpagaLalli, bhArathIdhEvigU j~JAna viruvudhilla,

avathAragaLalliyU saha bhArathIdhEvige kela samdharbhagaLalli j~JAnavu

thirOhithavAguvudhu " hIge vachanagaLidhdhudharimdha gAyathriyamthe

bhArathIdhEvige j~JAnAdhigaLiruvavemba mAthannu saha mUlarUpaparavemdhu

thiLiyabEkembudhu " saha kUdadhu. hIge, samshayavannu tharabAradhu. hIge,

aj~JAnavannu pradharshisuvudhu Ishvarana ichCheyannu thiLidhu, adharamthe

natisuvudharimdha, hIgeyE samADhAnavannu thiLiyabEku. yAkamdhare, avarige

yAvAgalU svalpavU samshayaj~JAnagaLiruvudhilla. bhArathiyalli svalpa

aj~JAnavanU saha chimthisathakkadhdhalla - bhAvisathakkadhdhalla.

bhArathIdhEviyaralliyE adhara shamkeyannu mAdabAradhemdhiruvAga,

sarasvathiyalli hELuvudhEnu? " hIgiruva niravakAshapramANagaLimdha braHma,

vAyu sarasvathI, bhArathI - ivarige aj~JAna mumthAdhuvugaLu iruvadhE illa.

purANasamdharbhagaLalli hAge samshayAdhigaLa ullEkhavu bamdhudhAdhare,

avugaLannellA avaru dhaithyara mOhanakkAgi thOrisidhudhu " - emdhu

samADhAnadhimdha kANabEku.

 

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

-------

 

_______________

HP LaserJet 1010.

http://h50025.www5.hp.com/hpcom/in_en/10_35_88_1707overview.html Preferred

Printing Solutions.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:43:36 -0800 (PST), Bharath Gargesh B.P

<bgargesh wrote:

 

> I think, " Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws in

> Brahma(himself) " ... means something like this.

 

> further argument. During the end of Drona parva, when

> Ashwatthama hurled the Narayanaaastra against the

> Pandavas, everyone else in accordance with Krishna's

> advice, put down their weapons and succumbed to the

> Missile, but for Bheema. Srimadaacharya's principle is

> " Devotion towards God, only for God's sake and not for

> saving own life "

 

Rather, Krishna declared that the astra would not harm those who

physically bowed to it. While others promptly did that, Bhimasena did

not do though, in his own mind, he bowed to the deity of the weapon.

The reason is Kshatriya dharma, which requires the warrior to face his

opponents boldly in any case. Being the abhimAni devatA of dharma in

general and kShatriyas in particular, Sri Vayu does not bow down. He

is shoved away in the nick of the moment by the Lord. This, among

other instances, go on to demonstrate the dictum, 'shuddhe bhAgavate

dharme nirato yatvR^ikodaraH'. Similar is the case when Nahusha

attacks the Pandavas in the form of a snake. Bhima refuses to answer

his questions, because a kShatriya is expected to use his weapons, and

not his brahma-j~nAna, for protecting himself. While paltry beings

like oneself use ideas of 'Apatdharma' to protect and cover up

transgressions of dharma, there is no such thing for Sri Vayu.

 

> In all the above instances, it shows that Mukhyaprana

> doesnt want to do anything but to serve/think about

> God. Which I think is a flaw called as " Paramotsaaha

> Varjana " He is not enthusiastic towards anything but

> God.

 

Can you kindly clarify where is this 'paramotsAha varjana' mentioned?

I have a question on that too: At one place, you say " Mukhyaprana

doesn't want to do anything but to serve / think about God " and later

say " But to please God ... " . If you think that Sri Mukhyaprana knows

that certain acts in this universe will please the Lord, don't you

think he will simply do it on his own nature? Where is the question of

contradiction for you to write " But to please God... " ?

 

> Chaturmukha Brahma is no different to MukhyaPrana(A

> bit superior due to his posting...Like the difference

> between Shesha and Rudra).

 

Isn't the difference greater in case of Shesha and Rudra?

 

> The aforementioned fear is not be read as the normal

> fear. Its the same fear that everybody has.

 

Didn't get that.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

All my arguments in my previous mails on this subject

were on my understanding of the word

" Paramotsahavarjana " or rather on the word " Utsaaha " .

 

I thought that the word " Utsaha " means " Enthusiasm " .

 

I will try to write more clearly about what I tried to

say based on the above meaning of the word Utsaha.

 

There is no paramotsaha varjana mentioned anywhere in

the Dronaparva.

 

What I meant was that Paramotsaha varjana is inherent

in Mukhyaprana and his incarnations.

 

Let us take the instance of Drona Parva...

 

Bheema did'nt have the enthusiasm to save his own

life, or that of his army (Being a Sarvagna, he knew

that if everybody bowed to the missile they would be

saved) But he didnt do that. Infact the authour of the

Mahabharatha says that when the Missile came near

Bheema he was looking like a fire in the fire (Agnou

agniriva)

 

In his previous avatara as Hanumantha,

Before he crossed the ocean, when all the other mokeys

were talking about their strengths of how far can they

jump (which infact were weaknesses compared to

Hanumantha), Hanumantha was the quiet through out.

 

In his next avatara as Ananda Teertha, He is not

enthusiastic to return back from Badari...

 

Infact in the Madhva vijaya..It is said that even when

all the Gods prayed to Mukhyaprana to bless the

sajjivas on earth from the Tamas, he answered their

prayers only after Narayana commanded him to do

so...which in the Madhva vijaya is said more

beautifully....Mukhyaprana adorned the Garland of

prayers of the lesser Gods and the (Diamond Kirita or

only a diamond) of the command of the Lord and

incarnated as Vaasudeva in Pajaka.

 

This I think is the lack of enthusiasm, which all

jeevas have (Like one wants to be famous, one wants to

be called a saviour and so on...all these are due to

the enthusiasm a jeeva has) but Mukhyaprana doesnt

need all these.

 

May be I should compare him to the Lord, who is more

enthusiastic to save the ones who seek him.

 

This was the Utsaha I was talking of.

 

He is pure (Pavamana..or as in Pavanaha

Pavataamasmi..10th Chapter The Gita), so he loves the

God purely and wants nothing else (Wanting of nothing

else is the enthusiasm which is lacking).

(C.Brahma is also called as Aatmarati, Mukhyaprana is

called Anilayana or Anila one who resides in Aa

always).

 

And in the HKS padya mentioned by Sri Prasanna Krishna

 

mahitha RujugaNakomdhe paramO |

thsaha vivarjithavemba dhOShavu |

vihithavE sari, idhanu pEldhire muktha braHmarige |

bahudhu sAmyavu, j~JAna bhakuthiyu |

dhruhiNa padha pariyamtha vRudhDhiyu |

bahirupAsane umtanamthara bimbadharshanavu ||

 

I dont think the definition of " Paramotsaha varjana "

is given by Jagannatha Dasaru in the afore mentioned

padya, but rather it says that it is not in the Muktha

C.Brahma.

 

And as far as the fear I had written about,

 

If God commands C.Brahma or Mukhyaprana to do

something and they disagree to do so (Even though they

dont do it anytime..but there are times when they dont

do it) God still can do it without them since God is a

Sarvasamartha... " Kartum akartum anyatha kartum swamin

sarvasamarthaha "

 

But for the fear of not going in accordance with God

(which is not actually a fear) and hence not doing

what his wish is, he would do things which he would

have chosen, not to do.

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

 

 

 

--- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:43:36 -0800 (PST), Bharath

> Gargesh B.P

> <bgargesh wrote:

>

> > I think, " Brahma showing fear to demonstrate flaws

> in

> > Brahma(himself) " ... means something like this.

>

> > further argument. During the end of Drona parva,

> when

> > Ashwatthama hurled the Narayanaaastra against the

> > Pandavas, everyone else in accordance with

> Krishna's

> > advice, put down their weapons and succumbed to

> the

> > Missile, but for Bheema. Srimadaacharya's

> principle is

> > " Devotion towards God, only for God's sake and not

> for

> > saving own life "

>

> Rather, Krishna declared that the astra would not

> harm those who

> physically bowed to it. While others promptly did

> that, Bhimasena did

> not do though, in his own mind, he bowed to the

> deity of the weapon.

> The reason is Kshatriya dharma, which requires the

> warrior to face his

> opponents boldly in any case. Being the abhimAni

> devatA of dharma in

> general and kShatriyas in particular, Sri Vayu does

> not bow down. He

> is shoved away in the nick of the moment by the

> Lord. This, among

> other instances, go on to demonstrate the dictum,

> 'shuddhe bhAgavate

> dharme nirato yatvR^ikodaraH'. Similar is the case

> when Nahusha

> attacks the Pandavas in the form of a snake. Bhima

> refuses to answer

> his questions, because a kShatriya is expected to

> use his weapons, and

> not his brahma-j~nAna, for protecting himself. While

> paltry beings

> like oneself use ideas of 'Apatdharma' to protect

> and cover up

> transgressions of dharma, there is no such thing for

> Sri Vayu.

>

> > In all the above instances, it shows that

> Mukhyaprana

> > doesnt want to do anything but to serve/think

> about

> > God. Which I think is a flaw called as

> " Paramotsaaha

> > Varjana " He is not enthusiastic towards anything

> but

> > God.

>

> Can you kindly clarify where is this 'paramotsAha

> varjana' mentioned?

> I have a question on that too: At one place, you say

> " Mukhyaprana

> doesn't want to do anything but to serve / think

> about God " and later

> say " But to please God ... " . If you think that Sri

> Mukhyaprana knows

> that certain acts in this universe will please the

> Lord, don't you

> think he will simply do it on his own nature? Where

> is the question of

> contradiction for you to write " But to please

> God... " ?

>

> > Chaturmukha Brahma is no different to

> MukhyaPrana(A

> > bit superior due to his posting...Like the

> difference

> > between Shesha and Rudra).

>

> Isn't the difference greater in case of Shesha and

> Rudra?

>

> > The aforementioned fear is not be read as the

> normal

> > fear. Its the same fear that everybody has.

>

> Didn't get that.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishna K wrote on March 08, 2005 :

 

 

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:17:49 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

>

> The Madhva-siddhanta-sAra uses this idea of xaNArdha for reconciling

> statements which ascribe fear and ignorance to Brahma, and those that

> deny such flaws. He says that the fear and ignorance in other devatas

> like Rudra are 'sthira' (i.e., stay for a while) while in Brahma it is

> xaNArdha (half of an instant?), which is insignificant.

 

Please note the difficulty with this approach. If " sthira " means

" staying for a while " , how long is this while? Is there any pramANa

for such a definition of sthira. If not, won't it become a subjective

one. The mohana in Rudra is also not sthira! That " a while " can be

quarter instant, half instant, one hour or one day. If it is quarter

instant, then Brahma's " fear of xaNArdha " becomes sthira also !?

 

>> Here Acharya says (in the commentary):

>

> ..

>

>> " For the sake of making well known the nature of the people

>> who will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, ect. occur to

>> Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these

>> fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them?

 

>> Also, in this case it is not asuramohana, but only lokaviDambana

>> (no creation yet, so how is lokaviDambana? - At a later time,

>> the lokajanasvabhAva is highlighted thus - even Brahma, for being

>> in the category of amukta jIvakoTi, showed a sample of fear, etc.)

>> and bhagavatprIti.

>

> What is the meaning of the word 'loka-viDambana' ? Is it same as

> saying 'it reflects, represents, imitates the behavior of

> baddha-jiivas? I was wondering if there is some connotation of

> 'illusion' to it. Hope not.

 

No, it is not. " loka-viDambana " in the most common terms means

" acting like other humans, when a deity takes an AvatAra, even

though the deity need not act like that. In other words, it

seems as if the deity is acting like mere humans (like crawling,

crying, etc.) " . Here the word soes not mean " imitate " , but

" indicate or represent " , etc.

Please note " For the sake of making well known the nature of

the people who will be born,... " in the above translation.

 

Please see my other postings for other details.

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna