Re : Birth Details of Shri Madhvacharya

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

I see a different meaning to the quote " Hato va

praapsyase Svargam " ,

 

The shloka pada doesnt end there but continues to

" jito va Bhokshyase Maheem " . Meaning that If you win

then you will have the kingdom to rule and enjoy.

 

Extending that, not only the one who died in a war

will go to svarga, but the one who won it will also go

to Svarga, Because the person who won it would have

fought with more bravery and valor.

 

I think the chapters which continue after your quote

especially the 11h Chapter, asks Arjuna not to fight

and die, but to fight and win and enjoy the kingdom

and Svarga.

 

 

--- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

> 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.

Advicing his army would have achieved my understanding

of Kshatriya Dharma(and my understanding the Gita

quote of yours) of Bheema and my understanding of

Paramotsahavarjana.

 

Not Saving of Draupadi, Draupadi neednt be saved since

tamoyogyas like Dushasana couldnt touch her, who is

served by Gods like Shesha and Rudra.

 

And about the saving of Abhimanyu and Ghatotkacha.

Well I have read in the MBTN (ofcourse a translation

and withouot a Guru Patha) which mentions that the

Gods and their Progeny if not controlled will always

proceed in the path of Dharma so much that the

Kaliyuga wouldnt have happened, hence as mentioned by

you to complete the Avatarakarya, Bheema's inaction is

justified.

 

> 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).

I dont see a difference, Varjana(being devoid) of

something is abhava(non-availability) of something

 

So, unless some

> TippaNikaara or a

> learned person says this incident actually

> demonstrates

> paramotsAhavarjana, the discussion will not

> converge, I feel.

Well I cannot mention a Tippanikara or a learned

person since as I mentioned these illustrations are

from my thoughts which were to understand the

Paramotsaha Varjana.

 

> > 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?

Exactly, Hanumantha instead of sitting quiet, should

have asked all the kapis to step back and continued

alone from Kishkindha to find Sita.

But he didnt do so because he wanted other Kapis to do

their part of service to God and proceed in the path

of Adhyatma.

My point is that he sat quiet through the discussion

of their strengths. This small period of silence is my

point to see a Paramotsaha Varjana in him.

 

> > 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.

I dont see it as a greater flaw at all. If you see a

greater flaw here then you should see a greater flaw

in Bheema also (which is mentioned in the MBTN) when

he didnt want to obey Krishna's order to fight him.

This was when Kunti asked Krishna to show his immense

strength). The explanation to " not liking of the Job "

by Ananda Teertha is given by me by an example.

 

Since it(Paramotsaha Varjana)'s precise definition by

a Tippanikara or a Pracheena Grantha or by an

Arvacheena Scholar seems to be unavailable for now in

this mail group we have to wait till then to

understand Paramotsaha varjana or discuss more on this

(I remember reading a " maha udyama Abhavah " by Sri

Jayateertha as a definition to Paramotsaha varjana in

this mail chain), since I too feel the point of

discussion is going adrift.

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

> > 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

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:48:32 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

 

> > 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 " .

 

....

 

> 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.

 

And from what Sri Vadirajaru writes in bhAvaprakAshikA (on MBTN 1.9):

tatra kechit.h karmavipAkavashAdadhunaiva sthUladehAmshcha

prApnuvanti, it is evident some Rjus come before others because of

their karma vipAka.

 

> 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!

 

Alright sir, I will look up the HKS. I will be very grateful to

anybody who can post Sri Jambhukhandi Acharya's commentary. I am not

comfortable with Kannada and hence I cannot read Sri Wodeyaru's

commentary very well.

 

> > 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 didn't get this. Pls explain.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:22:14 -0500, Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

 

> > 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.

 

> 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. " .

 

But that really is no bAdhaka. As I pointed in my reply to him, there

is enough reason to conclude why this xaNArdha points to human

xaNArdha. As such, I think we can use the context to determine what

scale is being referred to; for example, as in paranAma nimeShakAnte.

 

All said and done, I agree that this time of xaNArdha is aupachArika

only. But that is more from the context of saying that Brahma does not

have any flaws sthira.

 

> > 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.

 

After I sent my last mail, I looked up sat-tattva-ratnamAla of Sri

Tampraparni Anandatirthacharya for help and here is his explanation,

which matches with that of Sri Keshava Rao garu to a great extent:

 

svayogyasampUrNa - bhagavadupAstiviShayaka - paramotsAhavarjana laxaNa

- guNAlpatArUpasyadoShasya sattvenAshubhAbhAvasya -

AnandonnAhasAdhanavad - utsAhotkarShAbhAvasyApi bandhahetutA

sambhavena vaiShamyAdinirastAt.h |

 

Absence of the highest enthusiasm, as is commensurate with one's

capacity, in worship of the Lord is paramotsAhavarjana; though this

deficiency or difference is of ** an exceedingly infinitesimal degree

**. This flaw is an abhAva / absence / deficiency (unlike other

'bhAva' flaws like presence of extreme attachment to something other

than Lord or vipariitaj~nAna -- which are seen in others). Just like

sAdhana to reach the heights of bliss is meaningful, so too is sAdhana

to reach the maximum possible utsAha. This little deficiency is the

reason for C.Brahma to be in samsAra. Therefore, the Lord does not

have flaws of partiality to keep Rjus in samsAra.

 

The last line in the above paragraph is understood with the objection

raised before this siddhAnta is given: When Brahma and other Rjus are

mentioned to be flawless, isn't it impossible that they be in samsAra?

For it has been mentioned that they don't have any bad karmas to

restrain them from getting mokSha (Raayaru, in parimaLa, says that

prArabdhakarma cannot be the reason for their being in samsaara).

 

The Only little difference, I see, from Sri Keshava Rao garu's

explanation is that this little flaw is *not* used as an explanation

for why a certain soul gets brahmapadavi before another Rjuyogi. There

is no mention of paramotsAhavarjana being maximum for the lowest Rju

in sAdhanashariira. If that were to be the case, somewhere some

Rjuyogi would have no utsAha at all, at the moment, which cannot be a

small flaw.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:02:27 -0800 (PST), Bharath Gargesh B.P

<bgargesh wrote:

 

namaskara,

 

> Advicing his army would have achieved my understanding

> of Kshatriya Dharma(and my understanding the Gita

> quote of yours) of Bheema and my understanding of

> Paramotsahavarjana.

 

Though there is a lot to be commented on your understanding of the

mention of 'hato vA prApsyasi svargaM' (pls see Rayaru's explanation,

where he quotes a shruti, to say that a battle is always a win-win

anyway for a kShatriya; and also his commentary on the preceeding

verse, where Arjuna receding from battle will cause harm to his

dharma), I think we are moving away from the point of discussion:

which is paramotsAhavarjana.

 

> Well I cannot mention a Tippanikara or a learned

> person since as I mentioned these illustrations are

> from my thoughts which were to understand the

> Paramotsaha Varjana.

 

For that reason, I think it makes sense for me to stop my

participation here. I also note that none of the writers quoted so

far, including Sri Jayatirtha, Parimalaacharyaru, Jagannathadaasaru,

Wodeyaru and Tampraparni Anandatiirthacharyaru -- have quoted none of

your illustrations (or anything similar) to explain

paramotsAhavarjana; which makes the case highly suspect for me.

Moreover, their explanations (which can be seen in the posts of Sri

Keshava Rao garu, or mine, from the sat-tattva-ratnamAla) seem to have

an entirely different idea of the concept.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

I too think, that since this instead of converging to

a point (though not diverging, it is the same as it

started since the discussion of Paramotsaha varjana),

 

I will stop my participation on this subject and go

back to books to study more, since I am unable to

convey what I wanted to.

 

Sri Krishna avare kindly let me know the work of Shri

Raghavendra Teertha which you say has a different

explanation to " hato va Prapsyase Svargam " .

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

 

--- Krishna K <krishna.kadiri wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:02:27 -0800 (PST), Bharath

> Gargesh B.P

> <bgargesh wrote:

>

> namaskara,

>

> > Advicing his army would have achieved my

> understanding

> > of Kshatriya Dharma(and my understanding the Gita

> > quote of yours) of Bheema and my understanding of

> > Paramotsahavarjana.

>

> Though there is a lot to be commented on your

> understanding of the

> mention of 'hato vA prApsyasi svargaM' (pls see

> Rayaru's explanation,

> where he quotes a shruti, to say that a battle is

> always a win-win

> anyway for a kShatriya; and also his commentary on

> the preceeding

> verse, where Arjuna receding from battle will cause

> harm to his

> dharma), I think we are moving away from the point

> of discussion:

> which is paramotsAhavarjana.

>

> > Well I cannot mention a Tippanikara or a learned

> > person since as I mentioned these illustrations

> are

> > from my thoughts which were to understand the

> > Paramotsaha Varjana.

>

> For that reason, I think it makes sense for me to

> stop my

> participation here. I also note that none of the

> writers quoted so

> far, including Sri Jayatirtha, Parimalaacharyaru,

> Jagannathadaasaru,

> Wodeyaru and Tampraparni Anandatiirthacharyaru --

> have quoted none of

> your illustrations (or anything similar) to explain

> paramotsAhavarjana; which makes the case highly

> suspect for me.

> Moreover, their explanations (which can be seen in

> the posts of Sri

> Keshava Rao garu, or mine, from the

> sat-tattva-ratnamAla) seem to have

> an entirely different idea of the concept.

>

> Thank you.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishna K wrote on March 16, 2005 :

 

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Kesava Rao wrote:

>

> And from what Sri Vadirajaru writes in bhAvaprakAshikA (on MBTN 1.9):

> tatra kechit.h karmavipAkavashAdadhunaiva sthUladehAmshcha

> prApnuvanti, it is evident some Rjus come before others because of

> their karma vipAka.

 

So, how did some Rjus get karmavipAka earlier than the ones, who

came later, and later than the ones, who came earlier than them.

That is the " sAdhanAtAratamya " that is mentioned.

 

>> > 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 didn't get this. Pls explain.

 

I actually have to repeat some info, which I said already.

 

Sri Jagannathadasaru says:

 

" 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.

 

Further let us denote your two statements as S1 and S2:

 

S1. Brahma's natural instinct to apply his energy and mind is not

in the sR^iShTyAdikarma.

S2. He will do so only when ordered by the Lord. "

 

The above two statements will lead to many problems.

 

1. There is no pramANa to support S1 or S2.

 

2. Infact there are pramANas against them. He seeks the help of

the Lord in doing sR^ishhTi. Why will he do so if not having

the natural instinct to do sR^ishhTi.

 

3. He even orders the king Priyavrata to have samsAra, when the

king decides to take up sannyAsa. If he himself is not keen,

how will he give Adesha to others?

 

4. Brahma is very keen to do any act that pleases the Lord. If

so, knowing fully well that " sR^ishhTikArya " pleases the Lord,

he does so only when ordered by the Lord! That is against

the R^iju svabhAva itself, I suppose.

 

5. S1 and S2 sound more like an example where " a child is not

willing to go and study in a school, but does so when ordered

by the parents " . Being such great aparoxa j~nAni, and knowing

that all the prior ones did that same kArya, Brahma does

sR^ishhTikArya only when ordered by the Lord!

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

I didnt get the meaning of your sentance in the mail

below:

> 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.

 

" That means accepting the presence of Paramotsaha is a

pitfall "

 

Do you mean to say that, Paramotsaha varjana is a Guna

instead of a dosha?

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

 

--- Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

>

> Krishna K wrote on March 16, 2005 :

>

> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Kesava Rao wrote:

> >

> > And from what Sri Vadirajaru writes in

> bhAvaprakAshikA (on MBTN 1.9):

> > tatra kechit.h karmavipAkavashAdadhunaiva

> sthUladehAmshcha

> > prApnuvanti, it is evident some Rjus come before

> others because of

> > their karma vipAka.

>

> So, how did some Rjus get karmavipAka earlier than

> the ones, who

> came later, and later than the ones, who came

> earlier than them.

> That is the " sAdhanAtAratamya " that is mentioned.

>

> >> > 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 didn't get this. Pls explain.

>

> I actually have to repeat some info, which I said

> already.

>

> Sri Jagannathadasaru says:

>

> " 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.

>

> Further let us denote your two statements as S1 and

> S2:

>

> S1. Brahma's natural instinct to apply his energy

> and mind is not

> in the sR^iShTyAdikarma.

> S2. He will do so only when ordered by the Lord. "

>

> The above two statements will lead to many problems.

>

> 1. There is no pramANa to support S1 or S2.

>

> 2. Infact there are pramANas against them. He seeks

> the help of

> the Lord in doing sR^ishhTi. Why will he do so if

> not having

> the natural instinct to do sR^ishhTi.

>

> 3. He even orders the king Priyavrata to have

> samsAra, when the

> king decides to take up sannyAsa. If he himself is

> not keen,

> how will he give Adesha to others?

>

> 4. Brahma is very keen to do any act that pleases

> the Lord. If

> so, knowing fully well that " sR^ishhTikArya " pleases

> the Lord,

> he does so only when ordered by the Lord! That is

> against

> the R^iju svabhAva itself, I suppose.

>

> 5. S1 and S2 sound more like an example where " a

> child is not

> willing to go and study in a school, but does so

> when ordered

> by the parents " . Being such great aparoxa j~nAni,

> and knowing

> that all the prior ones did that same kArya, Brahma

> does

> sR^ishhTikArya only when ordered by the Lord!

>

> Regards,

> Kesava Rao

>

> > Krishna

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vandanegalu,

 

The elaborations on the Paramotsahavarjana, given

here(explained by you) seem to be of use which is more

logical(Tarkika) than practical, only to prove the

difference between Mukta Brahmas.

 

Thanks

 

Regards

Bharath

--- Kesava Rao <kesava_rao wrote:

>

> Krishna K wrote on March 16, 2005 :

>

> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Kesava Rao wrote:

> >

> > And from what Sri Vadirajaru writes in

> bhAvaprakAshikA (on MBTN 1.9):

> > tatra kechit.h karmavipAkavashAdadhunaiva

> sthUladehAmshcha

> > prApnuvanti, it is evident some Rjus come before

> others because of

> > their karma vipAka.

>

> So, how did some Rjus get karmavipAka earlier than

> the ones, who

> came later, and later than the ones, who came

> earlier than them.

> That is the " sAdhanAtAratamya " that is mentioned.

>

> >> > 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 didn't get this. Pls explain.

>

> I actually have to repeat some info, which I said

> already.

>

> Sri Jagannathadasaru says:

>

> " 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.

>

> Further let us denote your two statements as S1 and

> S2:

>

> S1. Brahma's natural instinct to apply his energy

> and mind is not

> in the sR^iShTyAdikarma.

> S2. He will do so only when ordered by the Lord. "

>

> The above two statements will lead to many problems.

>

> 1. There is no pramANa to support S1 or S2.

>

> 2. Infact there are pramANas against them. He seeks

> the help of

> the Lord in doing sR^ishhTi. Why will he do so if

> not having

> the natural instinct to do sR^ishhTi.

>

> 3. He even orders the king Priyavrata to have

> samsAra, when the

> king decides to take up sannyAsa. If he himself is

> not keen,

> how will he give Adesha to others?

>

> 4. Brahma is very keen to do any act that pleases

> the Lord. If

> so, knowing fully well that " sR^ishhTikArya " pleases

> the Lord,

> he does so only when ordered by the Lord! That is

> against

> the R^iju svabhAva itself, I suppose.

>

> 5. S1 and S2 sound more like an example where " a

> child is not

> willing to go and study in a school, but does so

> when ordered

> by the parents " . Being such great aparoxa j~nAni,

> and knowing

> that all the prior ones did that same kArya, Brahma

> does

> sR^ishhTikArya only when ordered by the Lord!

>

> Regards,

> Kesava Rao

>

> > Krishna

>

>

>

>

>