Re : Birth Details of Shri Madhvacharya

[Guest guest]

Krishna K wrote on March 08, 2005 :

 

 

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

>

>> 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).

 

I think the difficulty and confusion arise because of trying to

give " a blanket statement " . This cannot be done always. Then this

better be done like a debate between the objectioner (O) and the

answerer (A).

 

O: The Advaitis also say the same thing " you cannot make a blanket

statement about the reality of the world " .

 

A: But they do make a blanket statement that the world is not real.

(In other words, it appears to be real, but it is not).

 

O: Aren't you saying that " Brahma appears to have ignorance,

fear, etc., but really he doesn't " .

 

A: The difference is a jaDa cannot pretend, but a jIva can.

 

O: So, are you saying that in all the instances Brahma just

pretended only.

 

A: Not exactly, I don't have exact word for the third possibility.

" Pretend " means " one does not have it, but shows it " . Here it

is something unique. By doing svIkAra of a quality in such a

way that there is no vikAra or lepa from that is unique. See below.

 

Further, in case of Vayu, let me give another example " Did Bhima

drink the blood of DushshAsana or not? " If yes, then he did a

prohibited act, if not then he did not fufill his oath " . He

achieved both by putting the blood in his mouth, but preventing

it from going inside by blocking with his teeth " .

 

In the present discussion, let us look at the possibilities.

 

1. A sentient being can pretend to have a quality, which it

actually does not; like Sri Rama feeling sad for Sita's

being taken away bt RavaNa, Bhima getting scared of Hanuman, etc.

 

2. The sentient beings actually having ignorance, etc. like

all the beings below Parashuklatraya.

 

Actually there has to be a third possibility, which we have to

accept to have samanvaya among all these.

 

Before we go to that, let us summarize some PramANas.

in PramANalaxaNa:

 

" yogij~nAnamR^ijUnAmanAdinityaM, Ishe jIvebhyo.adhikaM,

anyatrAlochane sarvavishayaM "

 

" for R^ijuyogis, the knowledge is beginningless and eternal,

in case of the knowledge about the Lord, it is more than

other jIvas and in other matters, it is universal on thinking

about them " .

 

The third posibility is Brahma did the " svIkAra of the

ignorance, fear, etc. " for only xaNArdha. This special

ability is Lord-given and not there for others (the

deities in kaxa 5 and below). Even then he did not have

any lepa or vikAra from them.

 

This is not exactly " pretence " and for lack of any proper

word, I used it, which caused confusion. VastutaH or

inherently he does not have fear, etc. but just took it

for a short half instant and has no vikAras from them.

Infact in the above instances after that xaNArdha, Brahma

gets rid of the fear thinking " I have no enemity against

the Lord, Who is stronger than me. Others (like Rudra and

below) are not stronger than me. So, I have nothing to fear " .

 

All this also establish VishNu sarvottamatva and does not

go against any pramANas.

 

> Sri Vijaydaasru in his praana dEvara mahime says:

> paLamaatra kaala , bhiiti illada prataapane

> WHEN YOU ARE FEARLESS EVEN FOR A SECOND,

 

Of course, it is the case. Right? When it is only half

an instant, it is " NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND " .

 

Note that this half an instant is also " only thru svIkAra " .

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:58:41 +0000, Prasanna Krishna

<krish_p wrote:

> Namaskaragalu!

>

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

> jambukhandi AchArya

 

Thanks for supplying the commentaries of Sri Jambhukhandi Acharya and

Sri Wodeyaru. Here's some stuff from madhva-siddhAnta-sAra of Sri

Vedagarbham Padmanabha suuri:

 

In the 'jIvaprakaraNa' after mentioning the pramANa that declare

Brahma to be devoid of flaws like aj~nAna (which are admittedly a

samsAri-jIva laxaNa), he gives the other side of the coin:

 

aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha |

shoko.apitAvannAnyatra kadAchit.h brahmaNo bhavet.h |

 

yatra vAyUdapadmAdirUpeNa prakR^itiH sthitA |

ekastatra abhibhed.h brahmavichArya bhayamatyagAt.h |

kAlo.antakaH pradhAnaM cha mR^ityuravyaktamityapi |

uchyate prakR^itiH sUxmA shrIbhUrdurgetinAmabhiH |

saiva brahmAdi bhayadA viShNoshchavashavartani ||

 

iti | ShaShThe tAtparye.aj~nAnabhayAderuktatvAt.h |

 

" There is aj~nAna four times for Brahma and fear, twice. Even there,

there is no misery for Brahma. Other than these [instances], these do

not happen to Brahma " .

 

" Where Prakriti (Lakshmidevi) is in the form of air (not the

bhUtavAyu, but some other form in mUlaprakRiti, perhaps), water and

padmarUpa, Brahma experiences fear there once, and he overcame that

after some rumination. kAla, antakaH, pradhAna, mR^ityu, avyakta --

these are the appellations of the sUxmaprakR^iti. She is called by the

names of shrI, bhU and durgA and is indeed responsible for giving fear

to Brahma and others, [but] always acts in accordance to Vishnu " .

 

Thus, is said in the Bhagavata-tatparya-nirNaya on the 6th skandha.

 

[This also implies that Brahma had fear simply because it was induced

by Lakshmi devi and not because he wants to hide his weakness of

paramotsAha-varjana]

 

He gives more quotes and then continues to do the reconciliation:

 

ato.aj~nAnAdi doShayuktatva laxaNasya brahmAdau nAvyAptiH | tarhi

bhayAdyabhAva pratipAdaka pramANavirodha iti chenna | teShAM rudrAdau

yathA bhayAdikaM sthiraM na tathA brahmaNIti

sthairyAbhAvapratipAdakatvAt.h | tathahyuktaM ShaShThatAtparyameva |

 

" Therefore, since Brahma (and other Rjus) are also seen to be subject

to flaws such as ignorance, there is no under-pervasion of definition

(of 'jIva'. A jIva is defined as one, who is subject to flaws such as

ignorance and are bound, rather, were bound at some time or the other.

This topic of discussion is raised in that context, that the above

definition does not bring R^ijus under its scope and hence is

under-pervasive).

 

But then, isn't (such a thesis) opposed by pramANAs that declare

Brahma to be bereft of fear etc? No. Such flaws, unlike the way they

are inherent or are stable (i.e., show their effect for a longer time)

exist in Rudra etc, are not so in Brahma. This lack of long-lasting

fear etc is the purport of such pramANas (which declare Brahma to be

bereft of fear etc). Thus, has been said in the BTN on 6th skandha

itself:

 

[this is in the Brahmatarka quote given by Sri Keshava Rao earlier]

 

j~nAnAdiguNapUrNasya brahmaNo.api kShaNArdhagAH |

bhayAdikA bhavantIha kathaM tasmin.h sthirAlayAH |

bhagavatprItaye nityaM brahmaNo yo bhayAdayaH |

na vR^ithA tasyabhAvaH syAt.h kashchitte.api kShaNArdhagAH ||

 

Translation picked by Sri Keshava Rao's mail:

 

" 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 " .

 

The author of Mss continues:

 

" brahmaNo.api alpaduHkhasyAt.h tadapyanabhimAnataH |

na tu AtmasambandhitayA bhogAbhAvAt.h kathaJNchana "

iti tathA adoShaH prAyasho brahmAdoShavantaH kramAtpara |

 

iti R^igbhAShye 'prAyaH' shabdena alpadoShokteshcha |

 

Here, Srimad Acharya first quotes some source that holds: " There is

little duHkha even for Brahma, though that is not due to his

attachment... " and then writes that Brahma is 'mostly' flawless and

others after him indeed have flaws. The usage of 'mostly' (the

equivalent of 'prAyashaH') indicates that there is an infinitesimal

flaw in Brahma etc.

 

This is the best possible reconciliation, IMHO. To deny bhaya etc

altogether as a drama or a pretense, does not seem fine and is

tantamount to refusing the words of Srimad Acharya himself. As I have

mentioned earlier, if it is a drama and not an actual event (though

for half of an instant), it cannot be used by Srimad Acharya to show

flaws in Brahma in his tAratamya-samarthana in Rgbhashya. As we can

see above, the author of MSS has given another case where Srimad

Acharya himself says that Brahma is 'mostly' flawless. Btw, this way

of reconciliation is mentioned in Sri Tampraparni

Anandatiirthacharya's sat-tattva-ratnamAlA.

 

As mentioned earlier, I think this position can also explain

asuramohaNa. Asuras think that these doShas are inherent to Brahma etc

jIvas, which is not the case. I was earlier doubting if this idea of

'asuramohana' in case of Brahma's aj~nAna has any pramANa. But that

has been supplied by Sri Jambhukhandi Acharya: mamAj~nAnaM dR^ishyate

yatra kutra daityAnAm mohanArthaM sadaiva | His vyAkhyAna also

mentions a couple of incidents (Hari eating him after the first

sR^iShTi outside the brahmANDa; and that of madhu-kaiTabha coming out

of Vishnu) where Brahma pretends fear, and this pretense is

asura-mohanArtha. If carefully noticed, the instance of fear mentioned

by Srimad Acharya is that at the time of sR^iShTikAla and induced by

mahAlaxmi. I think there is another instance, and this is from purANas

(Brahmatarka is not a purANa), where Brahma is said to have created

the hells when he was out of his mind (or when he didn't apply his

mind): sR^iShTiM chintayatastasya kalpAdiShu yathA purA | **

abuddhipUrvakaH ** sargaH prAdurbhuutastamomayaH (Vishnupurana). Such

instances, I agree, are for asuramohana; but not the one when he

experiences fear for half of an instant.

 

The madhva-siddhAnta-sAra also gives information on

'paramotsAha-varjana', where he quotes the following verse from

anu-vyAkhyAna (3.3.96):

 

R^ijUnAmeka evAsti paramotsAhavarjanam.h |

sa guNAlpatvamAtratvAnnarjutvena viruddhyate || 96||

 

The preceeding line is 'sarve ta ete jIveshhu dR^ishyante

tAratamyataH', which says that the presence of doShas in jIvas is from

anAdikAla. And says that these flaws can be seen in all jIvas, but

ofcourse in different proportions aligned with their tAratamya level.

And then proceeds to say that there is one doSha for R^ijus also,

which is paramotsAha varjana and says that their status as a Rju is

not constrained by this fact because they possess this in exceedingly

small quantity. But there is no explanation on this flaw.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

, " Prasanna Krishna " <krish_p@h...>

wrote:

 

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

> jambukhandi AchArya

> on padhya 35 of kalpasADhana/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi.

 

Namaskaragalu!

 

> 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

 

Please note above " hIgidhdharU, innU omdhu ... " . Even though, Brahma and Vayu

do certain acts for daityamohana, there are other instances, where they do for

some other purpose. The underlying purpose is always to please Sri Hari. What

is the overlaying purpose?

 

Let us first list the four instances of ignorance (all for half an instant)

 

1. Brahms did n't know about Himself, when he was brought into creation.

2. He did not know about Sri Hari being the cause for the " padma " , he was born

in.

3. He didn't know abot the creation process/sR^ijyaloka samsthAna.

4. Samvatsara rUpi Brahma didn't know about yaj~nasAdhanas (since nothing was

created yet)

 

The two instances of fear (and consequent shoka)(all for half an instant)

 

1. (As mentioned in " attR^itvAdhikaraNa " ), when he was first born, the Lord

" opened His mouth (as if to eat) " and Brahma screamed.

 

2. Samvatsara nAma Brahma expressed his yaj~nasAdhanA lAbha prayukta doshha.

 

Now let us have a debate between the objectioner (O) and the

answerer (A).

 

O: Why can't we say that all these are only daityamohaka.

 

A: Acharya does not say here in Bhagavata or in BrahmasUtrabhAshya

( " attR^itvAdhikaraNa " ) or in R^igbhAshhya or BrihdAraNyaka bhAshhya that

diatyamohana is the purpose.

 

O: Acharya mentions in other places and so we can say by implication that here

also that is the case.

 

A: OK, even granting that Acharya did not mention, none of the commentators on

" attR^itvAdhikaraNa " (Sri Trivikramapandita, Sri Jayatirtha, Sri

Raghuttamatirtha, Sri Raghavendratirtha, Sri TamraparNi Srinivasa, Sri SharkarA

Srinivasa) mentioned about Daityamohana.

 

O: Even then, why can't we still take it like that?

 

A: Acharya says

 

" aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha | "

 

Note the words " tu " , " eva cha " .

 

If daityamohana is the main purpose, then we will be indirectly saying that

AchArya doesn't know how to count.

 

O: How come?

 

A: The same Brahma, in his previous kalpa, as Vayu, caused daityamohana in

BhimavatAra for instance. So they have to be added to the above list. However

the above list says " eva cha " .

 

O: The above list is just a sample. It does not say that there are no other

instances. May be you are reading too much into " tu " , " eva cha " .

 

A: Further Acharya says:

 

" tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h "

 

That is it and never ever Brahma has any of those.

 

This means that this list makes up some special cases, which are different from

other cases where Daityamohana is the main purpose.

 

O: Then what about the commentaries of Shankarshana Odeyaru and

Shri jambukhandi AchArya?

 

A: Though Daityamohana is not the immediate purpose, later on reading them in

Puranas, daityas do get subjected to delusion. So, there is no contention with

their commentaries either.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

Namaskaragalu.

 

For those who would want to read madhva sidhdhantha sara on net, here is the

link that loads djvu file.

 

http://ia105620.us.archive.org/petabox/cgi-bin/load_djvu_applet.cgi?file=/3/text\

s/MadhvaSiddanthaSara/MadhvaSiddanthaSara.djvu

 

The jIva prakaraNa quoted by Shri Krishna starts at page no. 144. You can

jump to pg. 144 directly.

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Expressions unlimited! http://server1.msn.co.in/sp04/messenger/ The all new

MSN Messenger!

[Guest guest]

Shri Keshava Rayare!

Namaskaragalu.

 

> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:46:44 -0500

>

>

>A: Though Daityamohana is not the immediate purpose, later on reading them

>in

>Puranas, daityas do get subjected to delusion. So, there is no contention

>with

>their commentaries either.

>

 

I fully agree with your argument that dhaithyamOhana may/may not be the

primary objective depending on what the instance is. Especially the

instances that we have been discussing are for

" shrInivAsana prIthigOsuga " .

 

After going through different vyAkhyAnas on related topics for HKS padhyas,

reading through madhva sidhDhamtha sAra, your postings, etc. the following

could be the reasons for Rujus to

project aj~JAna/bhaya

 

BraHma/Ruju jIva projects aj~JAna/bhaya

1. for hari prIthi

2. to show the supremacy of Lakshmi over Rujus

3. to show the utmost supremacy of shrI hari in thArathaMya

4. to establish the difference between muktha brahma's & amuktha brahma

5. to show that they are paramOthsAha varjitharu

6. to show that their j~JAna/bhakthi are increasing as they move closer to

mukthathva

7.to prove the fact that shrI laxmi alone is dhu:kha aspRuShTalu (as per

thathva samkhyAna)

8. since jIva laxaNa is having aj~JAna and to prove this point.

 

Inspite of projecting aj~JAna/bhaya due to different sevaral reasons, the

aj~JAna/bhaya doesn't act as prathibamDhaka to their sADhana and its always

to please shrI hari with the full knowledge that they are projecting this as

per his Aj~Jna (Agna) and He is making them do that.

 

I am quoting your sentence from your posting

" By doing svIkAra of a quality in such a way that there is no vikAra or lepa

from that is unique. "

 

Having said all this, one thing which I am not very convinced with is the

following:

 

One thing which is mentioned in madhva sidhDhamtha sAra is that Rujus have

dhu:kha for xaNArDha. How would we interpret this is what is interesting?

Is this same as paramOthsAha

varjana or is it different from that? Does paramOthsAha varjithathva dhOSha

appear once

in a while or it is recurring in Rujus?

 

In one of the vyAkhyAnas to that specific padhya " mahitha

RujugaNakomdhe.... " related to the paramOthsAha varjana, it is explained

through an example.

Let us assume a person A knows that he is getting promotion to a higher post

next day.

Another person B knows that he would be getting it after 10 years.

Naturally the uthsAha in person A is much more than person B because he is

getting the higher post the very next day.

 

In one of my earliest postings, I related uthsAha to bliss. As rightly

mentioned by Shri Krishna & Shri Gargesh as such there is no definition of

uthsAha. So what is uthsAha then?

 

As such Rujus have thArathaMya in

1. uthsAha

2. j~JAna/bhakthi

(j~JAna bhakthyAdhyakhila guNa chathurAnananoLippamthe mukhyaprANanali

chimthipudhu

yathkimchithkoretheyAgi)

 

Should we be adding dhu:kha to this thArathaMya?? Then if braHma has

xaNArDha then kalki (101 Ruju) should have more than xaNArDha dhu:kha and

Ruju 1 should be having much more than that.

 

Inputs from you & others are welcome.

 

>Regards

>Kesava Rao

>

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Screensavers for every mood! http://www.msn.co.in/Download/screensaver/ Jazz

up your screen!

[Guest guest]

Prasanna Krishna wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 :

 

Namaskaragalu.

 

>> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:46:44 -0500

>>

> Having said all this, one thing which I am not very convinced with is the

> following:

>

> One thing which is mentioned in madhva sidhDhamtha sAra is that Rujus have

> dhu:kha for xaNArDha. How would we interpret this is what is interesting?

 

I didn't get this question.

 

> Is this same as paramOthsAha varjana or is it different from that?

 

It is different.

 

> Does paramOthsAha varjithathva dhOSha appear once in a while or it

> is recurring in Rujus?

 

For this we have to understand what is " paramotsAha " and what is

" paramotsAhavivarjitatva " . See below.

 

> In one of the vyAkhyAnas to that specific padhya " mahitha

> RujugaNakomdhe.... " related to the paramOthsAha varjana, it is explained

> through an example.

> Let us assume a person A knows that he is getting promotion to a higher post

> next day.

> Another person B knows that he would be getting it after 10 years.

> Naturally the uthsAha in person A is much more than person B because he is

> getting the higher post the very next day.

 

We have to be very cautious in thsi example, because what if the

person A and B are not interested in the promotion at all. The R^ijugaNa

is lot more interested in serving the Lord than any promotion (or in

this case Brahmapadavi).

 

> In one of my earliest postings, I related uthsAha to bliss. As rightly

> mentioned by Shri Krishna & Shri Gargesh as such there is no definition of

> uthsAha. So what is uthsAha then?

 

UtsAha is not bliss nor paramotsAha is bliss.

For understanding this, let us proceed this way. The R^ijugaNa (not only

the current 200, but all the prior ones and all the future ones) have the

same inherent ability. Let us say current Brahma is B1, current vAyu is

B2, the one who got mukti last is MB1, one who got mukti before that is

MB2, etc.

 

Then the sequence can be represented as follows:

 

{...B3, B2, B1, MB1, MB2, MB3...}

 

If all of them have the same inherent ability, then all of them should

have become Brahmas at the same time and gotten Mukti at the same time.

However we know that is not the case. If we say that they are all equal,

but God decide to give them at different times, then this will give

the flaw of partaility to the Lord. That is impossible.

The reason for " padavIprayukta vyatyAsa " is nothing but the " sAdhanA

prayukta vyatyAsa " . There is small diference in " sAdhanotsaha " between

any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana is what is utsAha.

If we take the " utsAha " of curent Brahma as " paramotsAha " (say a kind

of measure P, which is relative one), then B2 does not have P. If we

take utsAha of MB1 as P, then B1 does not have as much as P, but

slightly less, thus this " utsAha " is the one that is responsible

for the queuing. Thus every R^ijugaNastha has utsAha of certain tiny

amount less than the one earlier. Even then this " utsAha " of each

is of an extra-ordinary amount. This kind of doshha is necessary,

as you can notice it (for maintaining the queue).

That is the visheshha of each one. (the letter " vi " in vivarjita

indicates this. Thus " parama + utsAha + vi + varjita " means each

R^ijugaNastha lacks that " special utsAha[increment] " that is

present in the one earlier in the queue.

This is one beautiful concept.

 

> As such Rujus have thArathaMya in

> 1. uthsAha

> 2. j~JAna/bhakthi

> (j~JAna bhakthyAdhyakhila guNa chathurAnananoLippamthe mukhyaprANanali

> chimthipudhu

> yathkimchithkoretheyAgi)

>

> Should we be adding dhu:kha to this thArathaMya??

 

No. The question is irrelevant, since there is no vikAra from the shoka.

 

> Then if braHma has xaNArDha then kalki (101 Ruju) should have more

> than xaNArdha dhu:kha and Ruju 1 should be having much more than that.

 

No. This question is again irrelevant, since braHma was kalki (101 Ruju)

at some point of time. Then Acharya would have said that " more than

xaNArDha dhu:kha " was there for Brahma earlier on.

Remember, the classification made by AchArya in TatvasankhyAna (except

Lord and Laxmi, all the other jIvas belong to " duHkhaspR^ishhTaM "

category). It is thrilling to see the " JagannATakasUtradhAri " pretending

to eat Brahma and Brahma seeing the intent of the Lord " does svIkAra "

of " aj~nAna and shoka " for xaNArdha, thus satisfying the definition,

but still not having any vikAra from the " aj~nAna and shoka " .

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Regards

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

shrI Keshava Rayare!

NAmaskaragalu.

 

> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:30:17 -0500

>

> > Having said all this, one thing which I am not very convinced with is

>the

> > following:

> >

> > One thing which is mentioned in madhva sidhDhamtha sAra is that Rujus

>have

> > dhu:kha for xaNArDha. How would we interpret this is what is

>interesting?

>

>I didn't get this question.

>

 

In MSS, it is stated as following

" bhagavathprIthayE nithyam braHmaNO yE bhayAdhaya: |

na vRuthA thasyabhAva: syAth kashchiththEpi xaNArDhagA: |

braHmaNOpi alpadhu:khasyAthadhapyanabhimAnatha:| "

 

Kannada bhava from MSS

" xaNArDhagaLAdharU bhayAdhigaLu kEvala bhagavamthana prIthigOskaravE.

Adhare,

avu vyarthagaLAguvadhilla. braHmadhEvarige athyalpa dhu:khavAguththade. "

 

" The fear (projected by) in braHma is only for half a second. But it

doesn't go waste (or not without reason). braHma has a small (athyalpa)

dhu:kha. "

 

In MSS, further to above statements, it is very clearly mentioned that the

dhu:kha due to above is not because of dhEhAbhimAna.

 

The dhu:kha that we have is due to dhEhAbhimAna. When we have dhu:kha,

there is vikAra.

 

You have mentioned the following few times since the start of this thread:

" Brahma did svIkAra of aj~nAna and shoka for xaNArdha, thus satisfying the

definition (dhu:kha spruShTaru), but still not having any vikAra from the

aj~nAna and shoka "

 

Is it similar to an actor who projects sorrow on the stage (who accepts

difficulty/sorrow as defined by script which is defined by director/story

writer) but actually would not have sorrow?

 

As per you, it is a 3rd kind. From your earlier posting -

" Actually there has to be a third possibility, which we have to accept to

have samanvaya among all these "

 

I think this is where I require more inputs to understand it more

comfortably. Why cannot it be 1st kind.

From your earlier posting -

" A sentient being can pretend to have a quality, which it actually does not "

 

This is what I mentioned in my earlier posting when I said

" How would we interpret this is what is interesting? "

 

> > Is this same as paramOthsAha varjana or is it different from that?

>

>It is different.

>

 

Fine.

 

>Then the sequence can be represented as follows:

>

>{...B3, B2, B1, MB1, MB2, MB3...}

>

>If all of them have the same inherent ability, then all of them should

>have become Brahmas at the same time and gotten Mukti at the same time.

>However we know that is not the case. If we say that they are all equal,

>but God decide to give them at different times, then this will give

>the flaw of partaility to the Lord. That is impossible.

 

I hope you are referring to this analogy only among sRujya Ruju jivas and

not

considering asRujya Ruju jivas. Because again why shrI hari has picked up a

specific

Ruju Jiva to fit in sRujya Ruju pada 1 is not very clearly described and

usually it is

attributed to His aghatitha ghatanA shakthi/sAmarthya.

 

>The reason for " padavIprayukta vyatyAsa " is nothing but the " sAdhanA

>prayukta vyatyAsa " . There is small diference in " sAdhanotsaha " between

>any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana is what is utsAha.

 

So you are defining uthsAha as " inherent ability to do sADhana " . Again this

variation in inherent ability (??) to do sADhana is in terms of what?

 

1. Is it variations in j~JAna/bhakthi (HKS - 24 - 12 & 34)?

2. Is it variations in bimbOpAsana (abjaja padhavi paryamtha bimbOpAsanavu

aDhika - HKS 24-12)?

3. Is it the variations in Anamdha anubhUthi

Is it variations in 1, 2 & 3.

 

>This is one beautiful concept.

 

Exactly. It is very interesting.

 

> >

> > Should we be adding dhu:kha to this thArathaMya??

>

>No. The question is irrelevant, since there is no vikAra from the shoka.

>

 

This again boils down to having more clarify on 3rd kind as stated by you.

If it were 1st kind, then there is no problem. If it were 3rd kind then let

us have thArathaMya in 3rd kind only.

 

>

>No. This question is again irrelevant, since braHma was kalki (101 Ruju)

>at some point of time. Then Acharya would have said that " more than

>xaNArDha dhu:kha " was there for Brahma earlier on.

 

Exactly since AchArya did not say this I am trying to understand 3rd kind .

 

>

>Regards

>Kesava Rao

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to

get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

[Guest guest]

Prasanna Krishna wrote on March 12, 2005 :

 

NAmaskaragalu.

 

>> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>>Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:30:17 -0500

>>

> In MSS, it is stated as following

> " bhagavathprIthayE nithyam braHmaNO yE bhayAdhaya: |

> na vRuthA thasyabhAva: syAth kashchiththEpi xaNArDhagA: |

> braHmaNOpi alpadhu:khasyAthadhapyanabhimAnatha:| "

>

> Kannada bhava from MSS

> " xaNArDhagaLAdharU bhayAdhigaLu kEvala bhagavamthana prIthigOskaravE.

> Adhare,

> avu vyarthagaLAguvadhilla. braHmadhEvarige athyalpa dhu:khavAguththade. "

>

> " The fear (projected by) in braHma is only for half a second. But it doesn't

> go waste (or not without reason). braHma has a small (athyalpa) dhu:kha. "

>

> In MSS, further to above statements, it is very clearly mentioned that the

> dhu:kha due to above is not because of dhEhAbhimAna.

>

> The dhu:kha that we have is due to dhEhAbhimAna. When we have dhu:kha, there

> is vikAra.

>

> You have mentioned the following few times since the start of this thread:

> " Brahma did svIkAra of aj~nAna and shoka for xaNArdha, thus satisfying the

> definition (dhu:kha spruShTaru), but still not having any vikAra from the

> aj~nAna and shoka "

 

Yes. Further note that Brahma and Vayu are called " asharIravAn " , because

they don't have " sharIra abhimAna " .

 

> Is it similar to an actor who projects sorrow on the stage (who accepts

> difficulty/sorrow as defined by script which is defined by director/story

> writer) but actually would not have sorrow?

 

No, it is not. That will be pretence only and I said this is not that type.

As I mentioned earlier and as you mentioned below, it is third kind.

A crude partial example is " suppose A and B are supposed to go on stage

with shikha. A may wear a wig, making him look like he has shikha. B

actually gets a shave/cut and keeps shikha. A pretends that he has shikha

and B actually has shikha " .

 

> As per you, it is a 3rd kind. From your earlier posting -

> " Actually there has to be a third possibility, which we have to accept to

> have samanvaya among all these "

>

> I think this is where I require more inputs to understand it more

> comfortably. Why cannot it be 1st kind.

 

Because the 1st kind is given in other places like " BhimAvatAra " and

this does not include and so has to be different.

 

> From your earlier posting -

> " A sentient being can pretend to have a quality, which it actually does not "

 

Yes, and these cases (in case of Vayu say in BhimAvatAra) is for deluding

the demons.

 

> This is what I mentioned in my earlier posting when I said

> " How would we interpret this is what is interesting? "

 

There has to be third kind. How can one do " svIkAra " , if there is no

God-given ability to do that? God gave this to Brahma (Vayu) only

that too after he is born as Brahma. It is interesting, but this is

what Acharya told in Bhgavata tAtparya nirNaya (as posted earlier).

 

>>Then the sequence can be represented as follows:

>>

>>{...B3, B2, B1, MB1, MB2, MB3...}

>>

>>If all of them have the same inherent ability, then all of them should

>>have become Brahmas at the same time and gotten Mukti at the same time.

>>However we know that is not the case. If we say that they are all equal,

>>but God decide to give them at different times, then this will give

>>the flaw of partaility to the Lord. That is impossible.

>

> I hope you are referring to this analogy only among sRujya Ruju jivas and

> not considering asRujya Ruju jivas.

 

No, as I mentioned in my prior posting : I was talking about

" The R^ijugaNa (not only the current 200, but all the prior ones and all

the future ones) "

 

> Because again why shrI hari has picked up a specific Ruju Jiva to fit

> in sRujya Ruju pada 1 is not very clearly described and usually it is

> attributed to His aghatitha ghatanA shakthi/sAmarthya.

 

That will again lead to saying " partiality for God " . He picked up a

specific Ruju Jiva based on difference in terms of " time " or kAlavyavadhi.

 

>>The reason for " padavIprayukta vyatyAsa " is nothing but the " sAdhanA

>>prayukta vyatyAsa " . There is small diference in " sAdhanotsaha " between

>>any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana is what is utsAha.

>

> So you are defining uthsAha as " inherent ability to do sADhana " . Again this

> variation in inherent ability (??) to do sADhana is in terms of what?

 

In terms of kAlavyavadhi or " timing " .

 

> 1. Is it variations in j~JAna/bhakthi (HKS - 24 - 12 & 34)?

> 2. Is it variations in bimbOpAsana (abjaja padhavi paryamtha bimbOpAsanavu

> aDhika - HKS 24-12)?

> 3. Is it the variations in Anamdha anubhUthi

> Is it variations in 1, 2 & 3.

 

None of the above. Note that 24-12 (should be 23-12?) says

 

" abjajapadavi paryanta bimbopAsanavu adhika "

 

" Until brahmapadavi, bimbopAsana keeps increasing [without any tirodhAna] "

 

It does not say " abjajanige bimbopAsanavu adhika "

 

" For Brahma, bimbopAsana is more " .

 

24-34 (should be 23-34?) says

 

" j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNapadapariyanta vR^iddhiyu "

 

" Until brahmapadavi, j~nana and bhakti keep increasing [without any

tirodhAna] "

 

It does not say

 

" j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNanigadhika "

 

" For Brahma, j~nana and bhakti are more " .

 

In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower deities).

 

>> > Should we be adding dhu:kha to this thArathaMya??

>>

>>No. The question is irrelevant, since there is no vikAra from the shoka.

>>

> This again boils down to having more clarify on 3rd kind as stated by you.

> If it were 1st kind, then there is no problem. If it were 3rd kind then let

> us have thArathaMya in 3rd kind only.

 

All of them have for " xaNArdha only " . None of them have lepa. Then how can

there be tAratamya in 3rd kind? The tAratamya is only in " timing " .

 

>>No. This question is again irrelevant, since braHma was kalki (101 Ruju)

>>at some point of time. Then Acharya would have said that " more than

>>xaNArDha dhu:kha " was there for Brahma earlier on.

>

> Exactly since AchArya did not say this I am trying to understand 3rd kind .

 

AchArya did say that " Brahma had only on these occasions " . This explains

the third kind. By using " only " , it is implied that other incidents do

not come under this category. Since they are R^ijus, they cannot have

inherent shoka or vikAra from shoka. Thus the third kind is not pretence.

It is " doing svIkAra " , and also being free from the lepa. In other words

duHkhasparsha is there without the consequent vikAra (which happens to

all other jivAs from Rudra, downwards).

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Regards

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

Kesava Rao wrote on March 13, 2005 :

 

NAmaskaragalu.

 

A small clarification.

 

> There has to be third kind. How can one do " svIkAra " , if there is no

> God-given ability to do that? God gave this to Brahma (Vayu) only

> that too after he is born as Brahma.

 

All I can say based on my understanding of available pramANas is that

this particular instance of " svIkAra " was done by Brahma (i.e. by the

R^ijuyogi when he was born as Brahma). I can't say when God gave this

special ability. May be it is there all the time.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

[Guest guest]

shrI Keshava Rayare

Namaskaragalu.

 

> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

>Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:53:49 -0500

>

>

>No, it is not. That will be pretence only and I said this is not that type.

>As I mentioned earlier and as you mentioned below, it is third kind.

>A crude partial example is " suppose A and B are supposed to go on stage

>with shikha. A may wear a wig, making him look like he has shikha. B

>actually gets a shave/cut and keeps shikha. A pretends that he has shikha

>and B actually has shikha " .

>

 

I understand you mentioned the example to be crude partial. " nahi

dhRushtAmthe sarvasAmyam " .

But instead of giving an example where shikha of B is there before he went

onto stage and

after he returned from the stage, can we try some example which takes the

dhu:kha into consideration.

 

Let us assume A & B went onto stage with the script to enact dhu:kha.

A enacted it without he himself getting into dhu:kha while enacting it. It

is kind 1.

B started enacting it but got so involved with the role that he started

feeling it but once he

is out of scene he was normal. Can we call it 3rd kind?

 

Also can you please provide pramANas for this 3rd kind.

 

> > I think this is where I require more inputs to understand it more

> > comfortably. Why cannot it be 1st kind.

>

>Because the 1st kind is given in other places like " BhimAvatAra " and

>this does not include and so has to be different.

>

 

It is probably the 1st kind but to show that being a jIva braHma too is

dhu:kha spRuShTa.

 

> > This is what I mentioned in my earlier posting when I said

> > " How would we interpret this is what is interesting? "

>

>There has to be third kind. How can one do " svIkAra " , if there is no

>God-given ability to do that? God gave this to Brahma (Vayu) only

>that too after he is born as Brahma. It is interesting, but this is

>what Acharya told in Bhgavata tAtparya nirNaya (as posted earlier).

>

 

Posting your clarification on the above para:

>All I can say based on my understanding of available pramANas is that

>this particular instance of " svIkAra " was done by Brahma (i.e. by the

>R^ijuyogi when he was born as Brahma). I can't say when God gave this

>special ability. May be it is there all the time.

 

 

> > I hope you are referring to this analogy only among sRujya Ruju jivas

>and

> > not considering asRujya Ruju jivas.

>

>No, as I mentioned in my prior posting : I was talking about

> " The R^ijugaNa (not only the current 200, but all the prior ones and all

>the future ones) "

 

[chopp]

 

>That will again lead to saying " partiality for God " . He picked up a

>specific Ruju Jiva based on difference in terms of " time " or kAlavyavadhi.

[chopp]

 

>In terms of kAlavyavadhi or " timing " .

>

 

Can you please provide pramANas for picking up Ruju jIva based on

kAlavyavadhi

which is inherent in their svarUpa?

 

Also if it were true with Ruju's it should also be true with other kaxa

jIvas

because shrI hari is also filling the position when respective kaxa jIvas

are going to

mukthi along with braHma.

 

Note: In pamcha rathna prakAshika, kaxA/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi is 24th

samDhi.

Hence I referred it as 24. I will ensure that it is referred to as 23 to

avoid confusion.

 

> > 1. Is it variations in j~JAna/bhakthi (HKS - 24 - 12 & 34)?

> > 2. Is it variations in bimbOpAsana (abjaja padhavi paryamtha

>bimbOpAsanavu

> > aDhika - HKS 24-12)?

> > 3. Is it the variations in Anamdha anubhUthi

> > Is it variations in 1, 2 & 3.

>

>None of the above. Note that 24-12 (should be 23-12?) says

>

 

I have explained this hereunder.

 

> " abjajapadavi paryanta bimbopAsanavu adhika "

>

> " Until brahmapadavi, bimbopAsana keeps increasing [without any tirodhAna] "

>

>It does not say " abjajanige bimbopAsanavu adhika "

>

> " For Brahma, bimbopAsana is more " .

>

 

In the vyAkhyAna of shrI wodeyaru

" maththu idhalladhe, hRudhayAkAshadhalli bimbOpAsana embuvudhu

sRuShtarAgONavE Arambha

mAdathAre. A upAsanakke thirODhAna illa. aDhikavAguththA baruththadhe. "

 

" And not only that (it was in reference to increasing j~JAna, bhakthi, etc.

guNas in Ruju jIvas),

Ruju jIvas starts doing bimbOpAsana as soon as they come into sRushti.

There is no thirODhAna

for this upAsana. It keeps increasing. "

 

We find similar statements in the vyAkhyAna of shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru.

 

>24-34 (should be 23-34?) says

>

> " j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNapadapariyanta vR^iddhiyu "

>

> " Until brahmapadavi, j~nana and bhakti keep increasing [without any

>tirodhAna] "

>

>It does not say

>

> " j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNanigadhika "

>

> " For Brahma, j~nana and bhakti are more " .

>

 

padhya 34 deals only with Ruju jIvas.

 

mahitha RujugaNake, omdhe paramOthsahavivarjithavemba dhOshavu,

vihithavE sari, idhanu pELdhire mukthabraHmarige bahudhu sAmyavu,

j~JAna bhakuthiyu dhruhiNa padha pariyamtha vRudhDhiyu,

bahirupAsaneyumtanamthara bimbadharshanavu.

 

The entire padha deals with Ruju jIvas where it is very clearly mentioned

that j~JAna, bhakuthi

keeps increasing for these Rujus (who are sRujyaru) till they reach braHma

padhavi.

 

shrI samkarShaNa wodeyaru says while explaining about " j~JAna bhakuthiyu

dhruhiNa.... "

" I innuRuru mamdhi RujugaLige innUranE padhavAdha ajapadha pariyamtha

j~JAna, bakuthi

vairAgyAdhigaLa abhivRudhDhiyu. ivugaLu aDhikavE horthu,

rudhrAdhigaLOpAdhiyalli

thirODhAnavAgi maththu vyakthavAgOdhilla "

 

These 200 Ruju jIvas (need to take 199 excluding braHma), till they attain

200th position,

j~JAna, bhakuthi, vairAgya, etc. keeps increasing. Though the mUla padhya

doesn't refer

in this context to the sADhana of garuda-shESha-rudhra, shrI wodeyaru for

clarify further says,

these Rujus jIvas have increasing guNas but unlike rudhra & others do not

have thirODhAna.

 

Similar thoughts were projected by shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru. He also

gives aspaShtathA

in bimbadharshana among Ruju jIvas

 

" bahirupAsanA sAmAnyAparOxa: kalkyarvAk janmasu | vivRutham cha nAnAparOxa

svarUpaM |

vRudhDhipadham thamthrENa upAththaM | kramENa bimbadharshanEpi

spaShtathAkhyavRudhDhim

brUthE ||

 

Kannada anuvadha for the above:

upAsaneya bahi:sAmAnyAparOxavu iruthththadhe. sAmAnyAparOxadha svarUpavannu

himdhe nirUpisiruththEve.

illiya " vRudhDhi " . I padhakke thamthradhimdha punarAvRuththiruththadhe.

" spaShtathA " emba j~JAnagathavAdha vishEShavu bimbadharshanavidhdharU,

kramadhimdha

vRudhdhi yAguththadheyamdhu hELuththAre "

 

The above statements indicate that there is increase in spaShta of

bimbadharshana.

 

Further in padhya 37, very clearly shrI dhasaru says

 

j~JAna bhakthyAdhyakhiLaguNa chathu|

rAnananoLippamthe mukhya|

prANanali chimthipudhu yathkimchithu koratheyAgi ||

nyUna RujugaNa jIvarali kra|

mENa vRudhDhi j~JAna bhakuthi sa|

mAna bhArathi vANigaLali padhaprayukthaDhika ||

 

shrI samkarShaNa wodeyaru & shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru accept kimchith

korathe in

j~JAna bhakthyAdhyakhiLa guNa.

The vyAkhyAna of shrI wodeyaru starts like this:

" braHmana j~JAnakkU, vAyvAdhi RujugaLa j~JAnakkU thArathaMya

hELuththAre...... "

 

>In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

>them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

>to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower deities).

>

 

I have explained above in detail

 

>

>AchArya did say that " Brahma had only on these occasions " . This explains

>the third kind. By using " only " , it is implied that other incidents do

>not come under this category. Since they are R^ijus, they cannot have

>inherent shoka or vikAra from shoka. Thus the third kind is not pretence.

>It is " doing svIkAra " , and also being free from the lepa. In other words

>duHkhasparsha is there without the consequent vikAra (which happens to

>all other jivAs from Rudra, downwards).

>

 

It would be clearer to be after I understand 3rd kind correctly.

 

>Regards

>Kesava Rao

>

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]

Prasanna Krishna wrote on March 13, 2005 :

 

 

Namaskaragalu.

 

> I understand you mentioned the example to be crude partial. " nahi

> dhRushtAmthe sarvasAmyam " .

> But instead of giving an example where shikha of B is there before he went

> onto stage and

> after he returned from the stage, can we try some example which takes the

> dhu:kha into consideration.

>

> Let us assume A & B went onto stage with the script to enact dhu:kha.

> A enacted it without he himself getting into dhu:kha while enacting it. It

> is kind 1.

> B started enacting it but got so involved with the role that he started

> feeling it but once he

> is out of scene he was normal. Can we call it 3rd kind?

 

No, not really. All you can say is B acted better than A.

As I told that the case is unique. One cannot give a good example.

" gaganaM gaganAkAraM sAgaraM sAgaropamaM | Ashcharyo bhagavAn.h

vishhNuH " .

 

The sky is shaped like the sky and the ocean can only be compared

to an ocean. Lord VishhNu can be compared to Lord VishhNu only.

He is most Ashcharya.

 

Same way this act of Brahma can be compared to itself only.

If you so insist, another crude example (which again falls short)

is an actor can pretend that he has a pot on his head and act.

Another actor can actually put a pot on his head and when he

comes off the stage, he takes it off.

 

> Also can you please provide pramANas for this 3rd kind.

 

As I said earlier, there is no direct pramANa. If we don't take

this way, we have to conclude that AchArya does not know how to

count, since he said that " only 4 times aj~nAna and twice fear

(and consequent shoka) were shown by Brahma " (in Bhagavata TN).

If we persist to have these also as 1st kind only, then all the

pretending instances (like in BhimAvatAra) have to be added to

this count.

 

Another support is from MadhvasiddhAntasArasangraha (Madhva sss)

 

" andare - vastutaH avarugaLige doshhavilla | AdarU paramAtmana

prItyarthavAgi avugaLannu angIkAra mADiddAre | Addarinda

jIvalaxaNvAda doshhitvavU pramANapramitavAda nirdoshhitvavU

kUDuttavE | "

 

Also in Bhagavata TN, AchArya says:

 

" brahmaNo.api alapduHkhassyAttadapyanabhimAnataH | na tu

AtmasambhandhitayA... "

 

>> > I think this is where I require more inputs to understand it more

>> > comfortably. Why cannot it be 1st kind.

>>

>>Because the 1st kind is given in other places like " BhimAvatAra " and

>>this does not include and so has to be different.

>>

>

> It is probably the 1st kind but to show that being a jIva braHma too is

> dhu:kha spRuShTa.

 

If it is 1st kind, why did not AcharyA add other 1st kinds to this

count ?

 

>>No, as I mentioned in my prior posting : I was talking about

>> " The R^ijugaNa (not only the current 200, but all the prior ones and all

>>the future ones) "

>

> [chopp]

>

>>That will again lead to saying " partiality for God " . He picked up a

>>specific Ruju Jiva based on difference in terms of " time " or kAlavyavadhi.

> [chopp]

>

>>In terms of kAlavyavadhi or " timing " .

>>

>

> Can you please provide pramANas for picking up Ruju jIva based on

> kAlavyavadhi which is inherent in their svarUpa?

 

The Lord is sarvaguNasampUrNa and sarvadoshhavivarjita. Right ?

 

If this kAlavyavadhi is not taken, the flaw of partiality will be

attributed to the Lord or else why did He bring the sequence that

is there. It cannot be random. Right?

 

> Also if it were true with Ruju's it should also be true with other kaxa

> jIvas because shrI hari is also filling the position when respective

> kaxa jIvas are going to mukthi along with braHma.

 

Yes, that is true. But in other kaxas (lower than 4), there is a

possibility for tirohitatva. So one can justify the sequence in

case of other kaxas saying that different jIvas have different

amounts of tirohitatva. For ex. if the sequence for RudragaNa

is {...R3, R2, R1, S1, S2...}, one may say R1 was brought before

R2, because R1 has less tirohitatva than R2. Of course that may

not be the case and this also may be just kAlavyavadhi and padavi

prayukta bheda. However in case of R^ijus, there is no tirohitatva

at all and so, only kAlavyavadhi and padaviprayuktabheda can be

seen. Since this concept is brought in case of R^ijus, it becomes

easy to understand that in case of others kaxas also, this

(kAlavyavadhi and padaviprayuktabheda) can be understood.

 

> Note: In pamcha rathna prakAshika, kaxA/aparOxa thArathaMya samDhi is 24th

> samDhi. Hence I referred it as 24. I will ensure that it is referred to

> as 23 to avoid confusion.

 

That is OK. I was just curious how there is difference in sandhi numbering.

 

> I have explained this hereunder.

>

>> " abjajapadavi paryanta bimbopAsanavu adhika "

>>

>> " Until brahmapadavi, bimbopAsana keeps increasing [without any tirodhAna] "

>>

>>It does not say " abjajanige bimbopAsanavu adhika "

>>

>> " For Brahma, bimbopAsana is more " .

>>

>

> In the vyAkhyAna of shrI wodeyaru

> " maththu idhalladhe, hRudhayAkAshadhalli bimbOpAsana embuvudhu

> sRuShtarAgONavE Arambha

> mAdathAre. A upAsanakke thirODhAna illa. aDhikavAguththA baruththadhe. "

>

> " And not only that (it was in reference to increasing j~JAna, bhakthi, etc.

> guNas in Ruju jIvas),

> Ruju jIvas starts doing bimbOpAsana as soon as they come into sRushti.

> There is no thirODhAna

> for this upAsana. It keeps increasing. "

>

> We find similar statements in the vyAkhyAna of shrI jambukhandi AchAryaru.

 

That is fine. I also wrote the same " keeps increasing " . My point is

we have to compare same relative points of the two. Otherwise it is

to be understood as " padavIprayukta bheda " . In other words, if one

compares the present " kalki nAmaka R^iju " with " current Brahma when

he was kalki " , then they are same in all respects, except

padavIprayuktabheda and paramotsAhavivarjitatva. If we don't accept

that, then we will end up in the same logical difficulty as to " Why

current Brahma gets his position 99 brahmakalpas ahead of current Kalki? "

 

I hope it is clear now.

 

>>24-34 (should be 23-34?) says

>>

>> " j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNapadapariyanta vR^iddhiyu "

>>

>> " Until brahmapadavi, j~nana and bhakti keep increasing [without any

>>tirodhAna] "

>>

>>It does not say

>>

>> " j~nana bhakutiyu druhiNanigadhika "

>>

>> " For Brahma, j~nana and bhakti are more " .

>>

>

> padhya 34 deals only with Ruju jIvas.

>

> mahitha RujugaNake, omdhe paramOthsahavivarjithavemba dhOshavu,

> vihithavE sari, idhanu pELdhire mukthabraHmarige bahudhu sAmyavu,

> j~JAna bhakuthiyu dhruhiNa padha pariyamtha vRudhDhiyu,

> bahirupAsaneyumtanamthara bimbadharshanavu.

>

> The entire padha deals with Ruju jIvas where it is very clearly mentioned

> that j~JAna, bhakuthi

> keeps increasing for these Rujus (who are sRujyaru) till they reach braHma

> padhavi.

 

I also wrote " keeps increasing " .

 

> shrI samkarShaNa wodeyaru says while explaining about " j~JAna bhakuthiyu

> dhruhiNa.... "

> " I innuRuru mamdhi RujugaLige innUranE padhavAdha ajapadha pariyamtha

> j~JAna, bakuthi

> vairAgyAdhigaLa abhivRudhDhiyu. ivugaLu aDhikavE horthu,

> rudhrAdhigaLOpAdhiyalli

> thirODhAnavAgi maththu vyakthavAgOdhilla "

 

Note the stress on " absence of tirodhAna " for R^ijus and that such

tirodhAna is there in Rudra and others.

 

> * deleted *

 

Agreed and all that is fine. As noted above, my point is to stress

that we have to compare corresponding relative positions * only *

Otherwise, the comparison is to be understood as " padavIprayukta

bheda " . We hear that all the R^ijus have same yogyata. We don't hear

statements like Brahma is more than Kalki in yogyata, etc. The

potential or yogyata is same and they keep advancing in their sAdhana

and so there is difference in spashhTata of BhagavdrUpas, etc. for

R^ijus of different padavis. But if one takes the current Brahma, then

his " spashhTata when he was Kalki " is same as the " spashhTata of current

Kalki NOW " . The only difference is (as noted earlier) kAlavyavadhi

and paramotsAhavivarjitatva.

 

>>In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

>>them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

>>to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower deities).

>>

> I have explained above in detail

 

Yes, and I hope I made it clear as to what the point is.

 

>>AchArya did say that " Brahma had only on these occasions " . This explains

>>the third kind. By using " only " , it is implied that other incidents do

>>not come under this category. Since they are R^ijus, they cannot have

>>inherent shoka or vikAra from shoka. Thus the third kind is not pretence.

>>It is " doing svIkAra " , and also being free from the lepa. In other words

>>duHkhasparsha is there without the consequent vikAra (which happens to

>>all other jivAs from Rudra, downwards).

 

> It would be clearer to be after I understand 3rd kind correctly.

 

True, it is a difficult concept, but please note the statements of

AchArya in TattvasankhyAna (as posted earlier). To make it easier

to understand, I said " 3rd kind " . All that is said in Madhva sss, is

 

" angIkAra mADiddAre " .

 

To stress that it is a unique concept, I called it " 3rd kind " (to

diffrentiate from the two known ones - pretending ignorance and

having ignorance).

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Regards

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:12:50 -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 !?

 

That translation of 'sthirAlaya' is mine and is perhaps flawed. But

not really. 'sthirAlaya' is appositioned with xaNArdha, so I think it

should mean something that is longer than xaNArdha (or perhaps a

xaNa). The Bhagavata defines xaNa in 3.11.7 and I think it amounts to

4/5th of a second (from the dictionary, i really didn't calculate).

So, xaNArdha should be 2/5th of second. Thus Brahma's fear stands for

such a small time, it is insignificant, while on the contrary, others

have it for longer time. I think that subjectivity isn't there.

 

Since Srimad Acharya says elsewhere that Rjus have only one doSha of

paramotsAhavarjana, this fear for xaNArdha must be something that is

NOT inherent to Rjus.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:30:17 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

>

> > Prasanna Krishna wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 :

 

> The R^ijugaNa

> is lot more interested in serving the Lord than any promotion (or in

> this case Brahmapadavi).

>

> > In one of my earliest postings, I related uthsAha to bliss. As rightly

> > mentioned by Shri Krishna & Shri Gargesh as such there is no definition of

> > uthsAha. So what is uthsAha then?

 

Dear Prasanna avare, I didn't correct you on this. The dictionary

nevertheless mentions 'joy' and 'happiness' as one of the meanings of

utsAha, though I doubt if it can be used here.

 

In nyAyasudhA, Sri TIkAcharyaru interprets 'paramotsAhavarjana' as

'mahA-udyama-abhAvaH'. Now, that means, I don't understand (ofcourse,

apart from the literary meaning).

 

> any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana is what is utsAha.

> If we take the " utsAha " of curent Brahma as " paramotsAha " (say a kind

> of measure P, which is relative one), then B2 does not have P. If we

> take utsAha of MB1 as P, then B1 does not have as much as P, but

> slightly less, thus this " utsAha " is the one that is responsible

> for the queuing. Thus every R^ijugaNastha has utsAha of certain tiny

> amount less than the one earlier. Even then this " utsAha " of each

> is of an extra-ordinary amount. This kind of doshha is necessary,

> as you can notice it (for maintaining the queue).

> That is the visheshha of each one. (the letter " vi " in vivarjita

> indicates this. Thus " parama + utsAha + vi + varjita " means each

> R^ijugaNastha lacks that " special utsAha[increment] " that is

> present in the one earlier in the queue.

> This is one beautiful concept.

 

Dear K.garu, what is the source of your above explanation? Does

Acharya or any other writer give an explanation to it? I looked up the

TippaNis on nyAyasudhA but couldn't figure out any example to explain

this (anadhikArins like self could be plain blind when reading it, so

it is not impossible that there is something there that i have

missed). Rayaru makes a reference to Bhagavata-taatparya-nirNaya. but

i couldn't figure out.

 

You say, 'inherent ability to do sAdhana is utsAha'. Since you use the

adjective 'inherent', it must be same for all Rijus. Also, you take

that of the MB1 as the paramotsAha; why? As such, muktabrahma has no

sAdhana to be done.

 

My teacher has given a different explanation: He said something that

is similar to what Sri Gargesh wrote. That Brahma's natural instinct

to apply his energy and mind is not in the sR^iShTyAdikarma. He will

do so only when ordered by the Lord. When I asked him, why, this being

akin to vairAgya, is not a guNa instead a doSha, his reply was that

this is not really vairAgya because Brahma does know that those karmas

will also earn the grace of Lord, but still awaits an order from the

Lord. I am not convinced totally by this. Also, what about other

R^ijus who are not anyway engaged in sR^iShTyAdi karma?

 

All in all, I think this answer, and yours to the point that Rjus are

not interested in Brahmapadavi but are interested only in the Lord,

has some merit though both explanation needs help from some

TippaNikAra and consequent rumination from me.

 

I have similar questions for Sri Gargesh also, which I will put in a

separate mail.

 

> It is thrilling to see the " JagannATakasUtradhAri " pretending

> to eat Brahma and Brahma seeing the intent of the Lord " does svIkAra "

> of " aj~nAna and shoka " for xaNArdha, thus satisfying the definition,

> but still not having any vikAra from the " aj~nAna and shoka " .

 

Very thrilling Indeed ! The very concept of creation itself is

thrilling, and when it is seen in the background that all of it

happens just by the manifestation of Lord's ichChA, it is nothing

short of hair-raising.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:54 -0800 (PST), Bharath Gargesh B.P

<bgargesh wrote:

 

> Bheema did'nt have the enthusiasm to save his own

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

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, this is more to follow the kShatriya dharma

even at the cost of one's life. If this is not enthusiasm, what is?

 

> 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.

 

That perhaps is an indication of his 'aDambhitva'. In his bhAShya on

Gita 13.8, Srimad Acharya interprets 'Dambha' as that who have airs

about their greatness, despite knowing one's alpatva.

 

This happens with Bhima also. Before the start of war, Sri Krishna

tells Bhima that if he only wills, he can eat up the entire Brahmanda

(or something like that). This, when Bhima declares a modest figure of

how many enemies he could possibly kill in the war.

 

Similar is the case with Srimad Acharya also, in the incident of

'leshataH' vis-a-vis 'shaktitaH'. All these show modesty, which is a

virtue, and not lack of enthusiasm.

 

> 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.

 

But there's an important difference. The Gods prayed to Vishnu (mukundaM

devAshchaturmukhamukhAH sharaNaM prajagmuH), who then commanded

Mukhyaprana. The Gods did not pray to Mukhyaprana directly. Even so,

why would it indicate a lack of enthusiasm if he only waited for His

Lord to command?

 

Basically, what is the source of your illustrations, for

paramotsAhavarjana? Which TippaNikaara or writer has mentioned it and

where? Kindly clarify.

 

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

> called Anilayana or Anila one who resides in Aa

> always).

 

I guess you are referring to Acharya's commentary on Isha.Upanishad

(vAyuranilaM..). If yes, that translates to " that who has " aH " (not

Aa), the referrent of which is Brahman, as His abode or resting place

(nilayanaM).

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

Kindly see my replies.

 

--- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:54 -0800 (PST), Bharath

> Gargesh B.P

> <bgargesh wrote:

>

> > Bheema did'nt have the enthusiasm to save his own

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

> knew

>

> As I mentioned elsewhere, this is more to follow the

> kShatriya dharma

> even at the cost of one's life. If this is not

> enthusiasm, what is?

 

Even though Bheema fought with the Nararayana Astra,

he knew it would be in vain (Even though MukhyaPrana

and C.Brahma are the Abhimani Devatas of the Narayana

Astra, the Diety of the Missile was God himself). His

fight with the missile demonstrates the his

perseverence of Kshatriya Dharma. But usually

enthusiasm of all the living beings is to live.

 

Though Bheema knew that he had to live to perform the

Dharma (as they say in " Shareeram Aadyam Khalu Dharma

Sadhanam " ), he didnt care to give the advice to his

army ( " Duryodhana in Arjuna Vishada Chapter says Balam

Bheemaabhi Rakshitam, Krishna elsewhere says that The

Bhara of this army has to be shouldered by you, to

Bheema " ).

 

This was the lack of enthusiasm I was mentioning

about.

>

> > 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.

>

> That perhaps is an indication of his 'aDambhitva'.

> In his bhAShya on

> Gita 13.8, Srimad Acharya interprets 'Dambha' as

> that who have airs

> about their greatness, despite knowing one's

> alpatva.

This might not be an indication of the ADambhitva of

Srimadacharya, since there is no question of

Dambhachara of Srimadacharya here. Here Hanuman knows

about the alpatva of the other kapis and the amount of

Strength he has.

 

His ADambhitva in the same situation are as follows:

 

If you refer the first shloka of Sundarakanda Nirnaya

in the Story of Rama in the Mahabharata Tatparya

nirnaya, Though Hanuman can cross the ocean by

himself, Srimadacharya (and Hanuman) starts the

Chapter(starts the journey) by " Sri Ramaya Shaashvata

Suvistruta Shadgunaya, Sarversvaraya Bala veerya

Maharnavaya, Nattva Lilanghayishuhu Arnavam... "

(Bowing to Sri Rama who has the complete set of Six

Aishvaryas or Gunas always and who was an ocean of

Strength and valor, Hanuman lunged to cross the

ocean... " )

 

When Sita expresses doubt about the Kapi sainya

crossing the ocean, Hanuman says " Mattah Pratyavara

Naasti... (I am the last Kapi in the army of

Sugreeva) "

 

When King Ravana asks Hanuman, who was he, then

Hanuman Responds " Dasoham Kosalendrasya Raamasya

Aklishta Karmanaha " (I am the servant of The King of

Kosala, Sri Ramachandra who can perform all the Kriyas

without any difficulty " )

 

These might be the illustrations of ADambhitvas of

Srimadacharya.

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

>

> This happens with Bhima also. Before the start of

> war, Sri Krishna

> tells Bhima that if he only wills, he can eat up the

> entire Brahmanda

> (or something like that). This, when Bhima declares

> a modest figure of

> how many enemies he could possibly kill in the war.

 

This is not eating up of the Brahmanda, but breaking

the Brahmanda into two halves and using it as a Tala

to accompany singing

 

> Similar is the case with Srimad Acharya also, in the

> incident of

> 'leshataH' vis-a-vis 'shaktitaH'. All these show

> modesty, which is a

> virtue, and not lack of enthusiasm.

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

The above two examples are not quoted by me to explain

my understanding of Paramotsaha Varjana, and I agree

to the above two ones as virtue of Modesty

 

> > 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.

>

> But there's an important difference. The Gods prayed

> to Vishnu (mukundaM

> devAshchaturmukhamukhAH sharaNaM prajagmuH), who

> then commanded

> Mukhyaprana. The Gods did not pray to Mukhyaprana

> directly. Even so,

> why would it indicate a lack of enthusiasm if he

> only waited for His

> Lord to command?

 

I agree to your above argument, but why dont you

doubt\comment on the incident of Srimadacharya not

wanting to return from Badari during his first visit?

>

> Basically, what is the source of your illustrations,

> for

> paramotsAhavarjana? Which TippaNikaara or writer has

> mentioned it and

> where? Kindly clarify.

 

I have given the illustrations to explain Pramotsaha

Varjana, based on my understanding of my partial

knowledge of Madhva and Maadhva Litrature and

Sanskrit.

I am not mentioning any Tippanikara or writer.

 

>

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

> is

> > called Anilayana or Anila one who resides in Aa

> > always).

>

> I guess you are referring to Acharya's commentary on

> Isha.Upanishad

> (vAyuranilaM..). If yes, that translates to " that

> who has " aH " (not

> Aa), the referrent of which is Brahman, as His abode

> or resting place

> (nilayanaM).

Yes I was refering to the Yaagneeya

Mantropanishadbhashya of Srimad Acharya. I am sorry it

was a typo As you say it should have been aH and not

not Aa.

 

And Anila or Anilayana means one who has his mind,

thought, kriya, his everything in the Akara Vaachya

Bhagavanta.

 

C.Brahma and MukhyaPrana both could be called as Anila

or Anilayana.

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

I have certain doubts regarding your explanation of

Paramotsaha varjana.

 

Basically I will not be considering all the Rujus (Let

us not consider all of them) but 3 of them

MukhyaPrana, current Chaturmukha Brahma and the one

before him who got Liberated for my current

discussion.

 

You say that if all of them have same inherent quality

all of them should have become Brahma's simultaneously

and all of them should have attained Mukti

simultaneously, but it is not the case since there is

a Sadhana vyatyasa.

 

I agree that there is a Considerable or large Sadhana

Vyatyasa or differential between the Rujus and

C.Brahma, but the Sadhana Vyatyasa between MukhyaPrana

and C.Brahma is almost negligible as indicated by

Jagannatha Dasaru

 

" Enu Dhanyaro Brahma Guru Pavamanaru eervaru

eepariyali Ramadhavana Laavanyatishaygalanu...

Aa Bhavaanee Dhavanigasadhyavenisalu...et al

 

If you are meaning Sadhana by amount of Sadhana.

 

And I believe you are meaning Sadhana by amount or

quantity since you are using a differential " P " for

measuring the Sadhana.

 

But I think that the Sadhana of Brahma or MukhyaPrana

is not measured by the amount but by a different

scale.

 

Shesha is called as Ananta by the Gods lesser to him.

This means that the Gods cannot calculate the

qualities of Shesha.

Hence Rudra and Garuda also can be called as Ananta

since they all belong to the same cadre.

 

If the qualities of Shesha Rudra and Garuda are

limitless (meaning cant be calculated by lesser ones),

then imagine that of God, Laxmi, MukhyaPrana,

C.Brahma, Bharati and Saraswathi.

 

The (Limitless)qualities of God which is worshipped by

C.Brahma is different than that of the (Limitless)

qualities of God which is worshipped by MukhyaPrana

which is different from the (Limitless) qualities of

God which was worshipped by the C.Brahma who got

liberated before the current one and so on.

 

I think this is the difference between the Sadhana

Vyatyasa between MukhyaPrana and C.Brahma.

 

And if only Rujus have this Paramotsaha Varjana Dosha

and C.Brahma, in a different quantity than others is

not intelligible, since Jagannatha Dasaru calls

C.Brahma as the king of Ruju ganasthas.

 

" ..Rujuganada Arase VaNee Mukha Sarojena.. " , Meaning

that even C.Brahma also has " Paramotsaha Varjana "

dosha.

 

And this kind of (differential in Sadhana between

MukhyaPrana and C.Brahma, though I agree that Between

other Rujus it is larger) Dosha is un-necessary

(contrary to your statement) since it can be refuted

by the argument that Ananta Jeevas can reside in a

small place just like the Sun-Light which has VIBGYOR.

 

 

And the utsaha you have mentioned due to the gaining

of Brahmapadavi is quite questionable since when the

lesser Gods like Kama and others didnt have the utsaha

of having the seat of Indra when he went on exile, and

brought king Nahusha to his throne.

Means that the Gods have this innate quality of not

wanting glory by doing something which is not related

to Adhyatma.

 

 

Regards

Bharath

 

--- Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

 

>

> Prasanna Krishna wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 :

>

> Namaskaragalu.

>

> >> " Kesava Rao " <kesava_rao

> >>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:46:44 -0500

> >>

> > Having said all this, one thing which I am not

> very convinced with is the

> > following:

> >

> > One thing which is mentioned in madhva sidhDhamtha

> sAra is that Rujus have

> > dhu:kha for xaNArDha. How would we interpret this

> is what is interesting?

>

> I didn't get this question.

>

> > Is this same as paramOthsAha varjana or is it

> different from that?

>

> It is different.

>

> > Does paramOthsAha varjithathva dhOSha appear once

> in a while or it

> > is recurring in Rujus?

>

> For this we have to understand what is " paramotsAha "

> and what is

> " paramotsAhavivarjitatva " . See below.

>

> > In one of the vyAkhyAnas to that specific padhya

> " mahitha

> > RujugaNakomdhe.... " related to the paramOthsAha

> varjana, it is explained

> > through an example.

> > Let us assume a person A knows that he is getting

> promotion to a higher post

> > next day.

> > Another person B knows that he would be getting it

> after 10 years.

> > Naturally the uthsAha in person A is much more

> than person B because he is

> > getting the higher post the very next day.

>

> We have to be very cautious in thsi example, because

> what if the

> person A and B are not interested in the promotion

> at all. The R^ijugaNa

> is lot more interested in serving the Lord than any

> promotion (or in

> this case Brahmapadavi).

>

> > In one of my earliest postings, I related uthsAha

> to bliss. As rightly

> > mentioned by Shri Krishna & Shri Gargesh as such

> there is no definition of

> > uthsAha. So what is uthsAha then?

>

> UtsAha is not bliss nor paramotsAha is bliss.

> For understanding this, let us proceed this way. The

> R^ijugaNa (not only

> the current 200, but all the prior ones and all the

> future ones) have the

> same inherent ability. Let us say current Brahma is

> B1, current vAyu is

> B2, the one who got mukti last is MB1, one who got

> mukti before that is

> MB2, etc.

>

> Then the sequence can be represented as follows:

>

> {...B3, B2, B1, MB1, MB2, MB3...}

>

> If all of them have the same inherent ability, then

> all of them should

> have become Brahmas at the same time and gotten

> Mukti at the same time.

> However we know that is not the case. If we say that

> they are all equal,

> but God decide to give them at different times, then

> this will give

> the flaw of partaility to the Lord. That is

> impossible.

> The reason for " padavIprayukta vyatyAsa " is nothing

> but the " sAdhanA

> prayukta vyatyAsa " . There is small diference in

> " sAdhanotsaha " between

> any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana

> is what is utsAha.

> If we take the " utsAha " of curent Brahma as

> " paramotsAha " (say a kind

> of measure P, which is relative one), then B2 does

> not have P. If we

> take utsAha of MB1 as P, then B1 does not have as

> much as P, but

> slightly less, thus this " utsAha " is the one that is

> responsible

> for the queuing. Thus every R^ijugaNastha has utsAha

> of certain tiny

> amount less than the one earlier. Even then this

> " utsAha " of each

> is of an extra-ordinary amount. This kind of doshha

> is necessary,

> as you can notice it (for maintaining the queue).

> That is the visheshha of each one. (the letter " vi "

> in vivarjita

> indicates this. Thus " parama + utsAha + vi +

> varjita " means each

> R^ijugaNastha lacks that " special utsAha[increment] "

> that is

> present in the one earlier in the queue.

> This is one beautiful concept.

>

> > As such Rujus have thArathaMya in

> > 1. uthsAha

> > 2. j~JAna/bhakthi

> > (j~JAna bhakthyAdhyakhila guNa

> chathurAnananoLippamthe mukhyaprANanali

> > chimthipudhu

> > yathkimchithkoretheyAgi)

> >

> > Should we be adding dhu:kha to this thArathaMya??

>

> No. The question is irrelevant, since there is no

> vikAra from the shoka.

>

> > Then if braHma has xaNArDha then kalki (101 Ruju)

> should have more

> > than xaNArdha dhu:kha and Ruju 1 should be having

> much more than that.

>

> No. This question is again irrelevant, since braHma

> was kalki (101 Ruju)

> at some point of time. Then Acharya would have said

> that " more than

> xaNArDha dhu:kha " was there for Brahma earlier on.

> Remember, the classification made by AchArya in

> TatvasankhyAna (except

> Lord and Laxmi, all the other jIvas belong to

> " duHkhaspR^ishhTaM "

> category). It is thrilling to see the

> " JagannATakasUtradhAri " pretending

> to eat Brahma and Brahma seeing the intent of the

> Lord " does svIkAra "

> of " aj~nAna and shoka " for xaNArdha, thus satisfying

> the definition,

> but still not having any vikAra from the " aj~nAna

> and shoka " .

>

> Regards

> Kesava Rao

>

> > Regards

> > Prasanna Krishna

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

shrI Keshava Rayare!

Namaskaragalu.

 

> " Kesava Rao " <Kesava_rao

>Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:52:08 -0500

>

> > Also can you please provide pramANas for this 3rd kind.

>

>As I said earlier, there is no direct pramANa. If we don't take

>this way, we have to conclude that AchArya does not know how to

>count, since he said that " only 4 times aj~nAna and twice fear

>(and consequent shoka) were shown by Brahma " (in Bhagavata TN).

>If we persist to have these also as 1st kind only, then all the

>pretending instances (like in BhimAvatAra) have to be added to

>this count.

>

 

Does shrI AchArya says BraHma has aj~JAna 4 times & fear twice or he relates

it generally with

all the Rujus? If it were only with BraHma then why should we take the

count of bhImAvathAra.

Though the underlying reason is hari prIthi, the external factor can be

anything from

" dhaithya mOhanArTha " to " dhu:kha spRuShtathva being jIva " to " prove shrI

hari sarmOthamathva "

and any other.

 

>If it is 1st kind, why did not AcharyA add other 1st kinds to this

>count ?

>

 

Other than these " 4 & 2 " , are there any instances where BraHma projected

such an instance.

Even if he has, whats the context in which " 4 & 2 " are projected and whats

the context for others.

 

> > Can you please provide pramANas for picking up Ruju jIva based on

> > kAlavyavadhi which is inherent in their svarUpa?

>

>The Lord is sarvaguNasampUrNa and sarvadoshhavivarjita. Right ?

>

>If this kAlavyavadhi is not taken, the flaw of partiality will be

>attributed to the Lord or else why did He bring the sequence that

>is there. It cannot be random. Right?

>

 

You are right when you say we have to take some factor so that S & S of shrI

hari doesn't get

affected, but this may not be the reason unless we have concrete pramAnAs

proving it.

 

>

>Yes, that is true. But in other kaxas (lower than 4), there is a

>possibility for tirohitatva. So one can justify the sequence in

>case of other kaxas saying that different jIvas have different

>amounts of tirohitatva. For ex. if the sequence for RudragaNa

>is {...R3, R2, R1, S1, S2...}, one may say R1 was brought before

>R2, because R1 has less tirohitatva than R2. Of course that may

>not be the case and this also may be just kAlavyavadhi and padavi

>prayukta bheda. However in case of R^ijus, there is no tirohitatva

>at all and so, only kAlavyavadhi and padaviprayuktabheda can be

>seen. Since this concept is brought in case of R^ijus, it becomes

>easy to understand that in case of others kaxas also, this

>(kAlavyavadhi and padaviprayuktabheda) can be understood.

>

 

thirOhithathva comes after they come into existence not before that because

as per

shrI wodeyara vyAkhyAna all the jIvas would be in sleep state. So

thirOhithathva should not

be a factor for deciding whether they should come into existence or not

since all shESha pada

jIvas are in the same state.

kAlavyavadhi or padhavIprayuktha bhEDha existing inherently in jIva requires

more inputs/discussions.

 

>

>That is fine. I also wrote the same " keeps increasing " . My point is

>we have to compare same relative points of the two. Otherwise it is

>to be understood as " padavIprayukta bheda " . In other words, if one

>compares the present " kalki nAmaka R^iju " with " current Brahma when

>he was kalki " , then they are same in all respects, except

>padavIprayuktabheda and paramotsAhavivarjitatva. If we don't accept

>that, then we will end up in the same logical difficulty as to " Why

>current Brahma gets his position 99 brahmakalpas ahead of current Kalki? "

>

>I hope it is clear now.

>

 

The very reason why I got confused is because of following statements in

your earlier posting:

 

" In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower deities). "

 

Having provided the clarifications in this mail of yours, I am comfortable

now.

 

No doubt the relativity is with lower kaxa in terms of vRujina & thirODhAna

in padhya 12 but

the reference of j~JAna/bhakthi/bimbOpAsana/etc. it is among Rujus

themselves in both the padhyas.

 

> > The entire padha deals with Ruju jIvas where it is very clearly

>mentioned

> > that j~JAna, bhakuthi

> > keeps increasing for these Rujus (who are sRujyaru) till they reach

>braHma

> > padhavi.

>

>I also wrote " keeps increasing " .

>

 

Same as explained above.

 

> > shrI samkarShaNa wodeyaru says while explaining about " j~JAna bhakuthiyu

> > dhruhiNa.... "

> > " I innuRuru mamdhi RujugaLige innUranE padhavAdha ajapadha pariyamtha

> > j~JAna, bakuthi

> > vairAgyAdhigaLa abhivRudhDhiyu. ivugaLu aDhikavE horthu,

> > rudhrAdhigaLOpAdhiyalli

> > thirODhAnavAgi maththu vyakthavAgOdhilla "

>

>Note the stress on " absence of tirodhAna " for R^ijus and that such

>tirodhAna is there in Rudra and others.

>

 

Agreed as mentioned above, the stress & relativity is only on thirODhana in

that padhya.

 

>

>Agreed and all that is fine. As noted above, my point is to stress

>that we have to compare corresponding relative positions * only *

>Otherwise, the comparison is to be understood as " padavIprayukta

>bheda " . We hear that all the R^ijus have same yogyata. We don't hear

>statements like Brahma is more than Kalki in yogyata, etc. The

>potential or yogyata is same and they keep advancing in their sAdhana

>and so there is difference in spashhTata of BhagavdrUpas, etc. for

>R^ijus of different padavis. But if one takes the current Brahma, then

>his " spashhTata when he was Kalki " is same as the " spashhTata of current

>Kalki NOW " . The only difference is (as noted earlier) kAlavyavadhi

>and paramotsAhavivarjitatva.

>

 

Relative positions is not with other kaxA as explained but withint Ruju gaNa

itself.

There is thArathaMya in their

1. j~JAna/bhakthi/other guNAs

2. uthsAha

3. bimbOpAsana (can be clubbed with 1 itself)

4. spashtathva in bimba dharshana (can be clubbed with 1 itself)

 

Though current braHma when he was kalki had same guNas, uthsAha as current

kalki, but still when

we compare current braHma with kalki we definitely have to take relatitivity

in above 4.

kAlavyavadhi is not just kAlavyavadhi but clubbed with sADhana of another x

kalpas. So it has to be

explained in terms of above 4 factors.

 

> >>In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

> >>them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

> >>to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower

>deities).

> >>

> > I have explained above in detail

>

>Yes, and I hope I made it clear as to what the point is.

>

 

I have explained above.

 

> > It would be clearer to be after I understand 3rd kind correctly.

>

>True, it is a difficult concept, but please note the statements of

>AchArya in TattvasankhyAna (as posted earlier). To make it easier

>to understand, I said " 3rd kind " . All that is said in Madhva sss, is

>

> " angIkAra mADiddAre " .

>

>To stress that it is a unique concept, I called it " 3rd kind " (to

>diffrentiate from the two known ones - pretending ignorance and

>having ignorance).

>

 

I pray shrI hari to give insight into this 3rd kind.

 

>Regards

>Kesava Rao

 

Regards

Prasanna Krishna

 

_______________

Millions of profiles to choose from.

http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Only on

BharatMatrimony.com.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:04:39 -0800 (PST), Bharath Gargesh B.P

<bgargesh wrote:

 

> --- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

 

> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:54 -0800 (PST), Bharath

> > Gargesh B.P <bgargesh wrote:

 

> > As I mentioned elsewhere, this is more to follow the

> > kShatriya dharma even at the cost of one's life. If this

> > is not enthusiasm, what is?

>

> Even though Bheema fought with the Nararayana Astra,

> he knew it would be in vain

 

Did he really fight it? I think he just didn't bow to it, and was

shoved aside by the Lord before it hit him.

 

> Though Bheema knew that he had to live to perform the

> Dharma (as they say in " Shareeram Aadyam Khalu Dharma

> Sadhanam " ), he didnt care to give the advice to his

> army

 

You mean, he did not give advice to his army and this indicates lack

of enthusiasm? I am sorry but I find it rather far-fetched. bhIma

finally kills 5 akShouhiNi out of 11, which is the maximum killed by

anybody in that war. Whence is the lack of enthusiasm?

 

> > That perhaps is an indication of his 'aDambhitva'.

> > In his bhAShya on Gita 13.8, Srimad Acharya interprets

> > 'Dambha' as that who have airs about their greatness,

> > despite knowing one's alpatva.

 

> This might not be an indication of the ADambhitva of

> Srimadacharya,

 

Never said that. I was just saying that Hanuman is aDambha, based on a

definition given by Srimad Acharya.

 

> The above two examples are not quoted by me to explain

> my understanding of Paramotsaha Varjana, and I agree

> to the above two ones as virtue of Modesty

 

....

 

> I agree to your above argument, but why dont you

> doubt\comment on the incident of Srimadacharya not

> wanting to return from Badari during his first visit?

 

He gives his reason, in addition to his desire to worship the Lord in

his two forms, for not wanting to return. He says that giving

knowledge to people, who are so degraded in the kalikAla, is like

giving havis to dogs! Had this reason not been mentioned, there is a

possibility of considering the above as a likely candidate for

expression of paramotsAhavarjana.

 

Still, if you can quote any commentator on the Sumadhvavijaya that

considers the above to be an instance of paramotsAha varjana, I will

agree.

 

> I am not mentioning any Tippanikara or writer.

 

Ok, did you hear about this in any pravachana? Pls understand my

problem, which is that I need some prAchIna commentator or writer to

have said something about this. That is simply because of their vast

learning, which no scholar of today can imitate. Also, much to my

distaste, I have found some scholars invent stuff that is not

mentioned anywhere earlier. That has only made me more skeptical.

Hence my need to know which TippaNikara has mentioned about

paramotsAhavarjana.

 

Is anuvyAkhyAna the only place where Srimad Acharya mentions about it?

 

> And Anila or Anilayana means one who has his mind,

> thought, kriya, his everything in the Akara Vaachya

> Bhagavanta.

 

Another nitpick: The letter used in 'aH' and not 'a'. Many recent

publications have it wrongly as 'a iti brahma', but it is actually 'aH

iti brahma' (Aitareya Aranyaka).

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

Kindly see my replies below.

 

--- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:04:39 -0800 (PST), Bharath

> Gargesh B.P

> <bgargesh wrote:

>

> > --- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

>

> > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:54 -0800 (PST),

> Bharath

> > > Gargesh B.P <bgargesh wrote:

>

> > > As I mentioned elsewhere, this is more to follow

> the

> > > kShatriya dharma even at the cost of one's life.

> If this

> > > is not enthusiasm, what is?

Well I thought of saving one's own life should be

given more prominence than in practicing Dharma, since

the body is a means to perform Dharma, hence gave this

example of Bheema Fighting with the Astra as a lack of

enthusiasm to save one's own life.

 

> > Even though Bheema fought with the Nararayana

> Astra,

> > he knew it would be in vain

>

> Did he really fight it? I think he just didn't bow

> to it, and was

> shoved aside by the Lord before it hit him.

If he didnt fight it then he would be failing in his

practice of Kshatriya Dharma, so I will for now assume

that he was fighting the Astra until I come to know of

the shlokas which tell otherwise (from the

MahaBharatha (I dont have a ready reckoner right now

with me.)

>

> > Though Bheema knew that he had to live to perform

> the

> > Dharma (as they say in " Shareeram Aadyam Khalu

> Dharma

> > Sadhanam " ), he didnt care to give the advice to

> his

> > army

>

> You mean, he did not give advice to his army and

> this indicates lack

> of enthusiasm? I am sorry but I find it rather

> far-fetched. bhIma

> finally kills 5 akShouhiNi out of 11, which is the

> maximum killed by

> anybody in that war. Whence is the lack of

> enthusiasm?

Killing of 5 akshouhiNi and his not advicing his army

is different in this case.

 

Had he wanted he could have saved " his " army by

advicing earlier than Krishna, which I think is lack

of enthusiasm.

>

> > > That perhaps is an indication of his

> 'aDambhitva'.

> > > In his bhAShya on Gita 13.8, Srimad Acharya

> interprets

> > > 'Dambha' as that who have airs about their

> greatness,

> > > despite knowing one's alpatva.

>

> > This might not be an indication of the ADambhitva

> of

> > Srimadacharya,

>

> Never said that. I was just saying that Hanuman is

> aDambha, based on a

> definition given by Srimad Acharya.

I am sorry for the confusion, I use the word

SrimadAcharya synonymously for all the avataras of

MukhyaPrana and MukhyaPrana.

 

What I meant was there was no question of Dambhaachara

here, since the weaknesses of Kapis and the immense

strength of Hanumantha is known by Hanumantha. And

Dambhachara would be bragging about ones strength or

any good thing even when its absent.

 

I meant the lack of enthusiasm of Hanumantha to come

out first when all the Kapis were talking about their

strength.

 

 

> > The above two examples are not quoted by me to

> explain

> > my understanding of Paramotsaha Varjana, and I

> agree

> > to the above two ones as virtue of Modesty

>

> ...

>

> > I agree to your above argument, but why dont you

> > doubt\comment on the incident of Srimadacharya not

> > wanting to return from Badari during his first

> visit?

>

> He gives his reason, in addition to his desire to

> worship the Lord in

> his two forms, for not wanting to return. He says

> that giving

> knowledge to people, who are so degraded in the

> kalikAla, is like

> giving havis to dogs! Had this reason not been

> mentioned, there is a

> possibility of considering the above as a likely

> candidate for

> expression of paramotsAhavarjana.

I still think this is a likely candidate for

Paramotsaha Varjana.

We have to see it this way.

Consider the enthusiasm of God to protect sajjivas

from Tamas and asking Ananda Teertha to return to lift

them up and consider his not liking of this job, since

the People of this time need more nurturing, more

delicate way of teaching. Basically he meant that the

People of Kaliyuga are Slow And it seems appropriate

for Ananda Teertha to say this because of his

Speed\Sharpness (Vege cha Laghave Chaiva Pralapasya

Varjane... Speed is one of the Qualities of

Bheema\MukhyaPrana and Srimadacharya).

 

It can be illustrated by an example in Madhva Vijaya.

Srimadacharya said that there are a minimum of 100

meanings to each name of Vishnu in the Vishnu Sahasra

Nama, when opponents asked him to narrate them

Srimadacharya countered them with another challenge of

recording (in mind) what he rendered.

 

The opponents could not remember many things after a

very few names.

 

Well had there been a Recorder who was fast enough to

connect to Srimadacharya we would have had another

invaluable addition to the now available Sarvamoola

Granthas.

 

 

>

> Still, if you can quote any commentator on the

> Sumadhvavijaya that

> considers the above to be an instance of paramotsAha

> varjana, I will

> agree.

I am sorry that all my arguments of Paramotsaha

Varjana in this mail chain by me are my own thoughts.

 

> > I am not mentioning any Tippanikara or writer.

>

> Ok, did you hear about this in any pravachana? Pls

> understand my

> problem, which is that I need some prAchIna

> commentator or writer to

> have said something about this. That is simply

> because of their vast

> learning, which no scholar of today can imitate.

> Also, much to my

> distaste, I have found some scholars invent stuff

> that is not

> mentioned anywhere earlier. That has only made me

> more skeptical.

> Hence my need to know which TippaNikara has

> mentioned about

> paramotsAhavarjana.

No I havent heard about it in any Pravachana.

Well Paramotsaha Varjana (as I have read) is mentioned

in the " Vayu-Gadya " of Sri Vyasa Teertha (I had

mentioned about it in my first mail to this mail

chain) It goes on something like this... " ....Paraa

krutha Paramotsaha Varjita Atirikta Sarva Doshaya.... "

(I understand a part of it as " Apart from Parmotsaha

Varjana one who is devoid of all other doshas " )

 

> Is anuvyAkhyAna the only place where Srimad Acharya

> mentions about it?

I dont know.

> > And Anila or Anilayana means one who has his

> mind,

> > thought, kriya, his everything in the Akara

> Vaachya

> > Bhagavanta.

>

> Another nitpick: The letter used in 'aH' and not

> 'a'. Many recent

> publications have it wrongly as 'a iti brahma', but

> it is actually 'aH

> iti brahma' (Aitareya Aranyaka).

Well I meant it as " Akara " the one which ends the word

Rama,Bheema and so on(For that matter we can consider

any word since all the aksharas have a

Bhagavadroopa..I remember reading of a roopa of

Jhatitaari of Jha)

And I remember another shloka partially by Srimad

Acharya in one of his works which starts like

something like this...

 

" Aa Ka Ya " ..... all these aksharas directly can be

used as synonymns of Vishnu

 

>

Regards

Bharath

 

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishna K wrote on March 14, 2005 :

 

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:12:50 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao

> wrote:

>

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

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

>>

>> ... If it is quarter

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

>

> That translation of 'sthirAlaya' is mine and is perhaps flawed. But

> not really. 'sthirAlaya' is appositioned with xaNArdha, so I think it

> should mean something that is longer than xaNArdha (or perhaps a

> xaNa). The Bhagavata defines xaNa in 3.11.7 and I think it amounts to

> 4/5th of a second (from the dictionary, i really didn't calculate).

> So, xaNArdha should be 2/5th of second. Thus Brahma's fear stands for

> such a small time, it is insignificant, while on the contrary, others

> have it for longer time. I think that subjectivity isn't there.

 

May be, it isn't there. My stress is that this xaNArdha is aupachArika

(symbolic only) to indicate a very short time. Otherwise as mentioned

by Sri Hanumantharao in another mail, questions will pop up like

" is it xaNArdha in Brahma's scale or human scale, etc. " .

 

> Since Srimad Acharya says elsewhere that Rjus have only one doSha of

> paramotsAhavarjana, this fear for xaNArdha must be something that is

> NOT inherent to Rjus.

 

Of course it is not inherent to R^ijus. (as the word R^iju itself

indicates).

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

Bharath Gargesh wrote on March 14:

 

> Basically I will not be considering all the Rujus (Let

> us not consider all of them) but 3 of them

> MukhyaPrana, current Chaturmukha Brahma and the one

> before him who got Liberated for my current

> discussion.

>

> You say that if all of them have same inherent quality

> all of them should have become Brahma's simultaneously

> and all of them should have attained Mukti

> simultaneously, but it is not the case since there is

> a Sadhana vyatyasa.

>

> I agree that there is a Considerable or large Sadhana

> Vyatyasa or differential between the Rujus and

> C.Brahma,

 

Is it? I don't know. All I could see in the commentaries

is that there is " sAdhanatAratamya " . Where is prAmANa

that there is considerable or large? Also which R^iju

are we talkng about? All of them from Kalki to Brahma are

R^ijus.

 

> but the Sadhana Vyatyasa between MukhyaPrana

> and C.Brahma is almost negligible as indicated by

> Jagannatha Dasaru

 

I don't see below any quantitative analysis on

" considerabl or negligible " . From the words below,

even the consort of Bhavani (Rudra) cannot gauge

the mahima of Brahma and Vayu. What is the fate

of men like us. True indeed, perceiving the muddle

and struggle, we are in!

 

> " Enu Dhanyaro Brahma Guru Pavamanaru eervaru

> eepariyali Ramadhavana Laavanyatishaygalanu...

> Aa Bhavaanee Dhavanigasadhyavenisalu...et al

>

> If you are meaning Sadhana by amount of Sadhana.

>

> And I believe you are meaning Sadhana by amount or

> quantity since you are using a differential " P " for

> measuring the Sadhana.

>

> But I think that the Sadhana of Brahma or MukhyaPrana

> is not measured by the amount but by a different

> scale.

 

I am not saying how it is measured or what it is measured

with. From the words of Sri Jagannathadasaru, which go:

 

" paramotsAhavivarjitavemba doshhavu vihitave sari idanu

peLade muktabrahmarige bahudu sAmya... "

 

It is quite apropriate to posit this flaw of ParamotsAha-

varjana; if this were not said, there will be [the difficulty

of] sAmya among muktabrahmas.

 

This clearly indicates even among muktabrahmas, there is no

absolute sAmya. By kaimutyanyAya, " the absolute sAmya " is

not there between any two R^ijus (even though they belong

to same kaxa).

 

In the commentary it is said:

 

bahudu sAmya = sAdhanatAratamya keTTu bahaLavAgi sAmyaralladavara

sAmya enta hELabEkAgatade. inthA dussAmya angIkarisabEkAgatade.

inthA sAmya anAdi yinda illa. IgalU illa.

 

(sAdhanatAratamya gets violated and we will be forced to

speak of absolute equality for the ones(muktabrahmas) who

don't have absolute equality. We will be forced to accept

such dussAmya. That kind of sAmya was not there from anAdi.

It is not there now.)

 

This also leads us to the definition of ParamotsAhavarjana,

as something whose absence necessitates or leads to dussAmya.

So ParamotsAha has nothing to do with our worldly enthusiasm

or any such thing. Note the double negative. Absence of

ParamotsAhavarjana is not good. That means ParamotsAhavarjana

is necessary. That means accepting the presence of ParamotsAha

is a pitfall.

 

> Shesha is called as Ananta by the Gods lesser to him.

> etc..

> The (Limitless)qualities of God which is worshipped by

> C.Brahma is different than that of the (Limitless)

> qualities of God which is worshipped by MukhyaPrana

> which is different from the (Limitless) qualities of

> God which was worshipped by the C.Brahma who got

> liberated before the current one and so on.

>

> I think this is the difference between the Sadhana

> Vyatyasa between MukhyaPrana and C.Brahma.

 

Note the words of Sri Shankarshana Odeyaru. It is not

just sAdhanavyatyAsa, but it is sAdhanatAratamya.

 

> And if only Rujus have this Paramotsaha Varjana Dosha

> and C.Brahma, in a different quantity than others is

> not intelligible, since Jagannatha Dasaru calls

> C.Brahma as the king of Ruju ganasthas.

 

I don't know what is being talked about here. The words

of Sri jagannAthadasaru and the commentaries above are

quite clear about sAdhanatAratamya and ParamotsAhavarjana.

 

> " ..Rujuganada Arase VaNee Mukha Sarojena.. " , Meaning

> that even C.Brahma also has " Paramotsaha Varjana "

> dosha.

 

So..?

 

> And this kind of (differential in Sadhana between

> MukhyaPrana and C.Brahma, though I agree that Between

> other Rujus it is larger) Dosha is un-necessary

> (contrary to your statement) since it can be refuted

> by the argument that Ananta Jeevas can reside in a

> small place just like the Sun-Light which has VIBGYOR.

 

Are you trying to say that the above words of Sri Jagannatha

dasaru and that of Sri Shankarshana Odeyaru are un-necessary ?

What has ananta jIvas residing in a small place to do with

the present discussion? Will that possibilty go against the

clear explanation of Sri JagannAthadasaru ? I don't see any

connection between the two ?

 

> And the utsaha you have mentioned due to the gaining

> of Brahmapadavi is quite questionable

 

Well, then can you explain the words of Sri JaganAthadasaru

and Sri Shankarshana Odeyaru in this context ?

 

> since when the lesser Gods like Kama and others didnt

> have the utsaha of having the seat of Indra when he went

> on exile,

 

I think you are doing a great injustice to the words of

Sri JagannAthadasaru by bringing a dictionary meaning of

the word " utsAha " , ignoring the context and passing on this

expression to kAma, Indra, which was not done in the

explanations, I have seen. I would appreciate if any

reference of paramotsAha or paramotsAhavarjana for Indra

and kAma is supplied.

 

> and brought king Nahusha to his throne.

> Means that the Gods have this innate quality of not

> wanting glory by doing something which is not related

> to Adhyatma.

 

That is precisly the point. The explanation of utsAha that

you are supplying has nothing to do with any AdhyAtma.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Bharath

[Guest guest]

Krishna K wrote on March 14, 2005 :

 

> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:30:17 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao

> wrote:

>>

>> > Prasanna Krishna wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 :

>

>> The R^ijugaNa

>> is lot more interested in serving the Lord than any promotion (or in

>> this case Brahmapadavi).

>>

>> > In one of my earliest postings, I related uthsAha to bliss. As rightly

>> > mentioned by Shri Krishna & Shri Gargesh as such there is no definition of

>> > uthsAha. So what is uthsAha then?

>

> Dear Prasanna avare, I didn't correct you on this. The dictionary

> nevertheless mentions 'joy' and 'happiness' as one of the meanings of

> utsAha, though I doubt if it can be used here.

 

Absolutely not.

 

> In nyAyasudhA, Sri TIkAcharyaru interprets 'paramotsAhavarjana' as

> 'mahA-udyama-abhAvaH'. Now, that means, I don't understand (ofcourse,

> apart from the literary meaning).

 

Please see my other mail. In such circumstances, the big help

will be from the context. Otherwise, we will be going in circles.

 

>> any two R^ijus. This inherent ability to do sAdhana is what is utsAha.

>> If we take the " utsAha " of curent Brahma as " paramotsAha " (say a kind

>> of measure P, which is relative one), then B2 does not have P. If we

>> take utsAha of MB1 as P, then B1 does not have as much as P, but

>> slightly less, thus this " utsAha " is the one that is responsible

>> for the queuing. Thus every R^ijugaNastha has utsAha of certain tiny

>> amount less than the one earlier. Even then this " utsAha " of each

>> is of an extra-ordinary amount. This kind of doshha is necessary,

>> as you can notice it (for maintaining the queue).

>> That is the visheshha of each one. (the letter " vi " in vivarjita

>> indicates this. Thus " parama + utsAha + vi + varjita " means each

>> R^ijugaNastha lacks that " special utsAha[increment] " that is

>> present in the one earlier in the queue.

>> This is one beautiful concept.

>

> Dear K.garu, what is the source of your above explanation? Does

> Acharya or any other writer give an explanation to it?

 

My source is just the words of Si JagannAthadAsaru and Sri

ShankarshaNa Odeyaru. The secondary source is " anupramANa " .

 

After sifting, churning and analyzing the Agamas, our Acharya

gave many statements. One big torch is " the Lord is sarvaguNa

sampUrNa and sarvadoshhavivarjita " (1). I try to see everything

in the backdrop of this.

 

Secondly " jIva jIva bheda " (2) is one of the panchbhedas. Two of

the corollary statements that emerge are " visheshha (the

uniqueness that differentiates every one/every thing from the

rest) and the gradation.

 

Nothing is accidental from God's point of view. Every thing

has a reason and rhyme. God is impartial from (1). There are

infinite mukta Brahmas and infinite more are yet to come.

The sequence cannot be random. From (2), dussAmya is not

possible. What will ensure all these? AchArya has beautifully

summarized this in AnvyAkhyAna:

 

sarve ta ete jIveshhu dR^ishyante tAratamyataH |

R^ijUnAmeka evAsti paramotsAhavarjanam.h |

sa guNAlpatvamAtratvAnnarjatvena viruddhayate || 96||

 

Even though this one thing " paramotsAhavarjanam " is there for

R^ijus, being minute, this quality does not oppose the R^ijutva

in them.

 

> I looked up the

> TippaNis on nyAyasudhA but couldn't figure out any example to explain

> this (anadhikArins like self could be plain blind when reading it, so

> it is not impossible that there is something there that i have

> missed). Rayaru makes a reference to Bhagavata-taatparya-nirNaya. but

> i couldn't figure out.

 

HarikathAmritasara and its commentary may open the doors!

 

> You say, 'inherent ability to do sAdhana is utsAha'. Since you use the

> adjective 'inherent', it must be same for all Rijus.

 

I said inherent because it has to be part of " jIva-jIva bheda " concept.

See my prior posting, where I explained paramotsAhavarjana.

 

> Also, you take

> that of the MB1 as the paramotsAha; why? As such, muktabrahma has no

> sAdhana to be done.

 

That is to bring out the jIva-jIva bheda. I did not say " to be done " .

The muktabrahma has done " something " that made him " mukta " one kalpa

earlier than current Brahma. What is it?

 

> My teacher has given a different explanation: He said something that

> is similar to what Sri Gargesh wrote. That Brahma's natural instinct

> to apply his energy and mind is not in the sR^iShTyAdikarma. He will

> do so only when ordered by the Lord.

 

Then that does not gel with the words of Sri JagannAthadAsaru. If that

is not there then " sAmya bahudu " . How can that be? I think, we should

not slip into taking the dictionary meaning of the word.

 

> When I asked him, why, this being

> akin to vairAgya, is not a guNa instead a doSha, his reply was that

> this is not really vairAgya because Brahma does know that those karmas

> will also earn the grace of Lord, but still awaits an order from the

> Lord. I am not convinced totally by this. Also, what about other

> R^ijus who are not anyway engaged in sR^iShTyAdi karma?

 

Much worse. In HarikathAmritasAra, this has been talked about

for muktabrahmas, who have no SrishhtikArya.

 

> All in all, I think this answer, and yours to the point that Rjus are

> not interested in Brahmapadavi but are interested only in the Lord,

> has some merit though both explanation needs help from some

> TippaNikAra and consequent rumination from me.

 

For me, the clear cut words of Sri JagannAthadasaru and even clearer

explanation from Sri Shankarshana Odeyaru helped a lot.

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

Prasanna Krishna wrote on March 14, 2005 :

 

Namaskaragalu.

 

>> " Kesava Rao " <Kesava_rao

>>Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:52:08 -0500

>>

>> > Also can you please provide pramANas for this 3rd kind.

>>

>>As I said earlier, there is no direct pramANa. If we don't take

>>this way, we have to conclude that AchArya does not know how to

>>count, since he said that " only 4 times aj~nAna and twice fear

>>(and consequent shoka) were shown by Brahma " (in Bhagavata TN).

>>If we persist to have these also as 1st kind only, then all the

>>pretending instances (like in BhimAvatAra) have to be added to

>>this count.

>>

>

> Does shrI AchArya says BraHma has aj~JAna 4 times & fear twice or he relates

> it generally with

> all the Rujus? If it were only with BraHma then why should we take the count

> of bhImAvathAra.

 

Because, when we talk of a jIva, we talk of the entire sAdhana. This Brahma was

Bhima earlier and what is the reason to ignore the acts done then? Of course

all their acts are " pramadada sudhiyAM mohaka dveshhabhAjAM " .

 

> Though the underlying reason is hari prIthi, the external factor can be

> anything from

> " dhaithya mOhanArTha " to " dhu:kha spRuShtathva being jIva " to " prove shrI

> hari sarmOthamathva "

> and any other.

 

Precisely. That is why it is important to have the correct count, or it

is better not to mention any count. It is not OK to mention a count and

then let it be wrong. Every word Acharya uses is precise and significant.

 

" tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h "

 

" Never ever, no where else " . This is enough emphasis to say all the

prior janmas are taken into account.

 

>>If it is 1st kind, why did not AcharyA add other 1st kinds to this

>>count ?

>>

>

> Other than these " 4 & 2 " , are there any instances where BraHma projected such

> an instance.

 

No, not as per BhagavatatAtaparyanirNaya.

 

> Even if he has, whats the context in which " 4 & 2 " are projected and whats

> the context for others.

 

As mentioned above, no.

 

>>If this kAlavyavadhi is not taken, the flaw of partiality will be

>>attributed to the Lord or else why did He bring the sequence that

>>is there. It cannot be random. Right?

>>

>

> You are right when you say we have to take some factor so that S & S of shrI

> hari doesn't get

> affected, but this may not be the reason unless we have concrete pramAnAs

> proving it.

>

I think the words of Sri jagannAthadasaru is concrete enough. Please

see my other mail.

 

> kAlavyavadhi or padhavIprayuktha bhEDha existing inherently in jIva requires

> more inputs/discussions.

 

Please see my other mail about paramotsAhavarjana.

 

> The very reason why I got confused is because of following statements in your

> earlier posting:

>

> " In both the verses above, R^ijugaNa is compared to the deities below

> them in the three qualities (bimbopAsana, j~nana and bhakti) especially

> to highlight absence of tirodhAna (which is there for the lower deities). "

>

> Having provided the clarifications in this mail of yours, I am comfortable

> now.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I don't know how to present. Another

pictorial presentation below (hoping that it won't add to the confusion).

________

/ / /

/ / /

____/_/_/

 

The above is say for 3 R^ijus. The bottom flat is AsR^ijya state.

Then the ever increasing bimbopAsana, bhagavdrUpa spashhTata, etc.

then reaching mukti. Note that the main idea is how they come into

creation at different times and go to mukti at different times.

One graph (of one R^iju) looks similar to that of other. This is

very crude form. Please don't read too much into it.

 

> Relative positions is not with other kaxA as explained but withint Ruju gaNa

> itself.

> There is thArathaMya in their

> 1. j~JAna/bhakthi/other guNAs

> 2. uthsAha

> 3. bimbOpAsana (can be clubbed with 1 itself)

> 4. spashtathva in bimba dharshana (can be clubbed with 1 itself)

>

> Though current braHma when he was kalki had same guNas, uthsAha as current

> kalki, but still when

> we compare current braHma with kalki we definitely have to take relatitivity

> in above 4.

> kAlavyavadhi is not just kAlavyavadhi but clubbed with sADhana of another x

> kalpas. So it has to be

> explained in terms of above 4 factors.

 

Agreed. But I did not see the need to discuss this. I was trying

to emphasize how even though they have same(or similar) yogyata, there

is sAdhanataratamya, resulting from paramotsAhavarjana.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Regards

> Prasanna Krishna

[Guest guest]

Bharath Gargesh B.P wrote on March 14, 2005 :

 

> --- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:54 -0800 (PST), Bharath

>> Gargesh B.P

>> <bgargesh wrote:

>>

>> > Bheema did'nt have the enthusiasm to save his own

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

>> knew

>>

>> As I mentioned elsewhere, this is more to follow the

>> kShatriya dharma

>> even at the cost of one's life. If this is not

>> enthusiasm, what is?

>

> Even though Bheema fought with the Nararayana Astra,

> he knew it would be in vain (Even though MukhyaPrana

> and C.Brahma are the Abhimani Devatas of the Narayana

> Astra, the Diety of the Missile was God himself). His

> fight with the missile demonstrates the his

> perseverence of Kshatriya Dharma. But usually

> enthusiasm of all the living beings is to live.

 

No one uses the expression " enthusiasm to live " . One must have

the " desire to live " . If Bhima knew that he is abhimAni

devata and that the arrow does not harm him, where is

the queston of his " not having the desire " ?

(We use expression like " he has no enthusiasm to play

soccer. " Thus enthusiasm is for lighter things.)

 

> Though Bheema knew that he had to live to perform the

> Dharma (as they say in " Shareeram Aadyam Khalu Dharma

> Sadhanam " ),

 

Being Aparoxa j~nAni, didn't he know that the arrow doesn't

harm him?

 

> he didnt care to give the advice to his army

 

He gave the advice " do not bow to the arrow " (as it comes

from the enemy, boldly face it).

 

> ( " Duryodhana in Arjuna Vishada Chapter says Balam

> Bheemaabhi Rakshitam, Krishna elsewhere says that The

> Bhara of this army has to be shouldered by you, to

> Bheema " ).

 

Of course, that is precisely what he did. Didn't he?

He boldly faced the enemy and the arrow sent by the enemy.

 

> This was the lack of enthusiasm I was mentioning

> about.

 

On the contrary, in fact, if any thing, this is an

extra-ordinary enthusiasm, he has exhibited.

 

This episode speaks of the greatness of Narayanastra, the

courage of Bhima, xatriyadharma and how Bhima comes out

unscathed.

 

> His ADambhitva in the same situation are as follows:

 

> (list of incidents showing hunmbleness)

 

What is the relevance ? What has " ADambhitva " to do

with utsAha or lack of it?

 

> I agree to your above argument, but why dont you

> doubt\comment on the incident of Srimadacharya not

> wanting to return from Badari during his first visit?

 

Again that has nothing to do utsAha. Is he not aparoxaj~nAni?

Doesn't he know the purport of his avatAra. He does like

that to show how much he loves his Lord. When he is present

in that form (vedavyAsa) in Badari, he says like that.

That again glorifies Acharya and has nothing to do with

" lack of utsAha " . It is utsAha to staty with VedavyAsa in

Badari.

 

> I have given the illustrations to explain Pramotsaha

> Varjana,

 

Sorry, it does not tally with Sri jagannathadasaru's words.

 

Regards

Kesava Rao

 

> Bharath

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:47:38 -0800 (PST), Bharath Gargesh B.P

<bgargesh wrote:

>

 

> Well I thought of saving one's own life should be

> given more prominence than in practicing Dharma, since

 

However, there is a difference for kShatriyas with 'hato vA prApyasi

svargaM' etc. They are expected to face the opponent boldly, and a

death in a battlefield is only a boon. They are not expected to run

away thinking that further dharma can be achieved by protecting the

body first. There is no other main dharma, but to face the haters of

Vishnu (nArAyaNadviT tadanubandhi nigrahaM: GTN of Acharya)

 

> If he didnt fight it then he would be failing in his

> practice of Kshatriya Dharma, so I will for now assume

> that he was fighting the Astra until I come to know of

> the shlokas which tell otherwise (from the

> MahaBharatha (I dont have a ready reckoner right now

> with me.)

 

Well, I think he just didn't bow to it, and faced it. The MBh

tatparyanirnaya covers this in the shlokas: 26.288 to 299. It says:

xatradharmAnusAreNa na nanAma cha bAhyataH |

 

> Had he wanted he could have saved " his " army by

> advicing earlier than Krishna, which I think is lack

> of enthusiasm.

 

Well, see it is like this: There are really tons of incidents where

Bhiima could have done something, which could have done good to the

Pandavas. For example, he could have asked Draupadi to stay away from

hastinApura before they arrived there for the game of dice. He could

have really gone beyond abhimanyu to ensure his safety. He could have

saved his son, ghaTotkacha by some other pre-arrangement. I don't

think non-action in any of these show a lack of enthusiasm, rather

paramotsAhavarjana. In all of the above cases, there was a certain

avatArakArya to happen. Why, even in this case, the very idea that

some of his own army were to get a svarga by dying in the war -- that

could be the purpose in Bhima not advicing his army.

 

I hope you also see the general drift of our discussion. There are

always many explanations possible for an 'abhAva' (paramotsAha-varjana

denotes the lack of something). So, unless some TippaNikaara or a

learned person says this incident actually demonstrates

paramotsAhavarjana, the discussion will not converge, I feel.

 

> I meant the lack of enthusiasm of Hanumantha to come

> out first when all the Kapis were talking about their

> strength.

 

That can be explained as demonstration of modesty. Otherwise, here is

a task (to find Sita) that is ordained by the Lord himself. How can

Hanumanta show laxity there?

 

> I still think this is a likely candidate for

> Paramotsaha Varjana.

> We have to see it this way.

> Consider the enthusiasm of God to protect sajjivas

> from Tamas and asking Ananda Teertha to return to lift

> them up and consider his not liking of this job, since

 

Srimad Anandatirtha took avataara on the earth because of the Lord's

commandment to save deserving souls. His not wanting to return from

badari, however, had both 'push' (too much degradation) and 'pull'

(the Lord in Badari) factors. If his desire of no-return from Badiri

were to be explained in terms of not liking his job that is given to

him by the Lord, it is a greater flaw than what this

paramotsAhavarjana seems.

 

> Well I meant it as " Akara " the one which ends the word

> Rama,Bheema and so on(For that matter we can consider

> any word since all the aksharas have a

> Bhagavadroopa..I remember reading of a roopa of

> Jhatitaari of Jha)

 

These ruupas are mentioned during the mAtrikAnyAsa. The

tantrasArasangraha mentions these forms presiding over the 51 letters.

 

> And I remember another shloka partially by Srimad

> Acharya in one of his works which starts like

> something like this...

>

> " Aa Ka Ya " ..... all these aksharas directly can be

> used as synonymns of Vishnu

 

That is, Vishnu (and only Vishnu) is the referrent of those letters.

 

Regards,

Krishna