karuNaarasasAgaraa

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish,

 

Your post in incorrect on few grounds.

 

a) Making up a satirical subject line is unwarranted. This is more so as

a moderator of the list. When someone searched with google, eventually

these subject line will stand out. I am going to delete this entire

thread from the archives. I have changed the subject line.

 

b) What you contend has no basis even on the textual ground. puraNa-s

are full of references to diferent rasaas expressed by devataa-s. They

are there even in shruti. Even if go by many theories of creation -

however limited they may be - they show that we derive these rasaa-s

from them and not the other way around. She is abundant with karuNa rasa

is amplified in many many places. Even when bhAskararAya comments of the

name shrimAta, he brings in a parallel with mothers of this world - loke

hi duHkha dashaayam mAtuH smaraNam prasiddham ... - hence, drawing a

parallel to mother is well known. The karuNa rasaa shown by a jIva is a

mere and a miniscule reflection of that of iishavara. If you go to devI

mahAtmyam, you will see that she as supreme consciousness even supports

in us as all these sentiments.

 

 

c) Your gold example is a classic case of misuse of a standard example

from vedAnta. That is the mixup of pAramArthika and vyAvahArika - which

is quite common among neo-vedantins. brahman is non-dual and partless.

Even though it serves as the basis of vyAvahArika - it is unaffected by

it. Just as gold remains the same whether its is a gold bar or gold

ornament. Names and forms are in the realm of vyAvahArika. All devata-s

are also within the realm of vyAvaharika. In paramArtha is there is no

duality - there is no jIva and no iishvara. Your handling of this

example is incorrect.

 

 

d) Whether a devata will respond to a devotional call with such a

sentiment is also amplified in many puraNa-s. It is not even the gender

of the devata that comes up when calling iishvara as mother or father.

Many nAyanmArs have address shiva as mother. iishvara has both personal

and impersonal front. This personal aspect of iishvaara is adored by

many many great saints throughout the history of our religion.

 

I would say that your post is not just incorrect, it is misleading and

diverting the context, and quite arrogant to the extent making fun of

well known fact - yet it is ignorant enough to smudge the standard gold

example. I would request you refrain from posting such messages to

.

 

With best wishes,

Ravi

 

 

 

Satish wrote:

> , MSR <abhayambika wrote:

>

>> 1) You say " few have the capacity *as she should be worshipped* " - >is

>> there only one way! And will a mother ignore a sincere praise or

>> offering from her child. Even a mother of this world gets excited >will

>> go gaga when her little child just learning to speak call her out >with

>> love - even by any name. Here you are taking about avyAja karuNa >muuRtiH

>>

>

> The shAstra speaks of devI as mother because it is the source of this world.

This devI is neither strI nor puruSha nor neutral.

>

> Another reason for calling it mother maybe for human-relatability.

>

> IMHO it is not correct to extend human sentiments prevalent in mom-child or

father-child relationships to devI or shiva.

>

> A jewel may be made from a gold bar. Will the gold bar listen to the jewel's

cries...A very poor example..but i am in a rush here...

>

> All this sounds good to hear..but it(i.e. devI) is not human and so is may not

be logical to extend/attach that which in human perception are known as

sentiments to devI.

>

> Regards

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear shrI Ravi,

 

>Your post in incorrect on few grounds.

his statement is based on a misunderstanding of my position. Please see below

why.

 

>Making up a satirical subject line is unwarranted. This is more so as

>a moderator of the list. When someone searched with google, eventually

>these subject line will stand out.

Instead of reading minds it is better to ask people if they intended any satire.

If you feel it is satirical, then know that it was totally unintended.

> I am going to delete this entire

>thread from the archives. I have changed the subject line.

I would suggest that before you delete, you should go through my other responses

on this thread.

This is because, I clarified my position and try to remove misunderstandings

based on initial post.

 

>b) What you contend has no basis even on the textual ground. puraNa-s

>are full of references to diferent rasaas expressed by devataa-s.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Not with an argumentative tone, but

with curiosity(to see if you understood me correctly) I ask, can you summarize

what I am contending here? I will save you the trouble of going through all

those posts and summarize it myself.

Please see below.

 

, Ranganath Gopalan <s_ranga108 wrote:

 

***> Dear Satish -- why is it incorrect to believe that human emotions >do not

apply to the Devi?

> ?

> Yes, the Divine Energy (let me term that as energy - because of >neutrality in

gender) is beyond gender, age, time etc etc etc

> ?

> But for the sake of mere mortals' such as myself, a form / >emotion /

>relatabilty is required to accuire and establish closeness

 

 

I used a wrong word I think. It is perfectly alright to associate emotions.

 

What would lead to erroneous conclusions is to use inductive logic/reasoning to

deduce the nature of devI.***

 

This association of rasa-s like karuNa, prema is not what I said is incorrect.

I said " But where it fails is: In saying since a world mother behaves in such

and such way in a certain scenario,

devI also is like that. "

There is a difference between saying, some x is wrong and saying that x is

perfectly alright but is not applicable in some situations. No?

 

 

>They are there even in shruti. Even if go by many theories of creation -

>however limited they may be - they show that we derive these rasaa-s

>from them and not the other way around.

Valid point. But just like the rasa-s having their origin in the paramAtma does

not justify their wrong usage(indulgence),

likewise, we need not be correct to use them to understand how devata-s respond

or to arrive at an understanding of the nature of devI.

>c) Your gold example is a classic case of misuse of a standard example

>from vedAnta. That is the mixup of pAramArthika and vyAvahArika -

You are focusing on the wrong area and totally missed my point again.

I myself said it is very crude example, and here I see you making philosohical

points

on this. Wasted effort.

 

>d) Whether a devata will respond to a devotional call with such a

>sentiment is also amplified in many puraNa-s. It is not even the gender

>of the devata that comes up when calling iishvara as mother or father.

>Many nAyanmArs have address shiva as mother. iishvara has both personal

>and impersonal front. This personal aspect of iishvaara is adored by

>many many great saints throughout the history of our religion.

 

As I said in my responses to all the posts in this thread, how can I disagree

with this?

Do note that the stories in the purANa-s are not to be taken verbatim ac

litteratim. They are full of such human sentiments since we are the intended

audience. Doesnt those very purANa-s talk of brahman as being devoid of rasa-s,

guNa-s etc?

 

maybe an example will help from one of your old posting(which I also had in mind

during my initial post on the thread)

 

In /message/8965 - you wrote

 

>When mother graces a child and blesses him abudantly, will a dad feel

>envious of that? Is this grace is equivalent to sporting with a female (as

>the word viharati is used)? Or this verse has some coded hidden meaning in it?

 

1) Since a father will not feel envious of a mother gracing a child, so Hari

will not feel envious. - Correct Conclusion

 

2) Since Hari is non-differeent from brahman(in the sense he is saguna brahman)

and it is devoid if human fallacies like

greed envy etc, so the mention of envy is only poetic --so Hari is not envious -

Correct Conclusion.

Both approaches arrived at correct answers

 

In the above example, 1 is like striking 6 in the fraction 26/65 and giving the

answer as 2/5 - Not a correct way of reducing the fraction but here by

coincidence it is correct.

Example 2 however is saying 26/65 is 13 x 2/13 x 5 and hence the answer is 2/5

All I intended to say, is that because of the fallacy in example one, you cannot

extend this to arrive at

1) Complete understanding of the devata-s or brahman

2) To conclude what act pleases the devata and what does not. In other words you

cannot derive AchAra from this. Ex: Since a human mother is amused by x y z acts

of a child, the divine mother also would be pleased by such acts of the

devotee...This may be correct for some acts and may be wrong for some acts.

These two are the points I contend.

What I did not contend: You cannot use human sentiments to relate to the divine.

Being a normal human like you and all others I relate to my iShTa-devata-s with

similar sentiments. I am not sure if there is another way to do it unless I am

some sort of an alien in human form..hehehe :-)

 

>I would say that your post is not just incorrect, it is misleading and

>diverting the context, and quite arrogant to the extent making fun of

>well known fact - yet it is ignorant enough to smudge the standard gold

>example. I would request you refrain from posting such messages to

>.

 

You missed what I was trying to say. You did not go through my other posts

clarifying my position.

What surprises me is you harp on something which I actually did not contend

about which I clarified atleast three times in the thread

And where did I make fun of karuNA rasa in this thread? Go through my posts in

this thread and show me.

And I inturn would request you not to write such posts again without completely

understanding what I said. This will waste both your and my time.

 

With Best Regards like always,

Satish

[Guest guest]

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

> >d) Whether a devata will respond to a devotional call with such a

> >sentiment is also amplified in many puraNa-s. It is not even the gender

> >of the devata that comes up when calling iishvara as mother or father.

> >Many nAyanmArs have address shiva as mother. iishvara has both personal

> >and impersonal front. This personal aspect of iishvaara is adored by

> >many many great saints throughout the history of our religion.

>

> As I said in my responses to all the posts in this thread, how can I disagree

with this?

> Do note that the stories in the purANa-s are not to be taken >verbatim ac

litteratim. They are full of such human sentiments since >we are the intended

audience. Doesnt those very purANa-s talk of >brahman as being devoid of rasa-s,

guNa-s etc?

 

Forgot to include this:

 

To add to this, stories described in the purANa-s are never intended to be taken

as they are. They are poetic descriptions. Sometimes the story is just intended

to act as a sheath, holding beneath themselves, various concepts or devata

mantra rahasya-s.

 

A good example would be the dakSha yaGYa dhvaMsana - shiva is described as being

angry or at times depicted as enduring madana tApa longing for parvata putrI- I

am sure all will agree that these depictions are for us and shiva has nothing do

with these rasa-s.

 

To say that the devata-s are filled with rasa-s based on this will be incorrect

and inappropriate.