aqua3

Nothing, not time, nor even sat ot asat were there. That is why I put a question mark in that post next to time. That state can not be perceived is what that hymn makes out. I visualise that state like this. After Maha pralaya, that is after Brahma deva completes 100 years of his existence, everything moves towards nothingness. (words do no justice to our thoughts in this). The regression continues so deep and intense, that what can be considered as Void also loses its characteristic. A kind of lull(?!) when all that existed with specific characteristics disslove into ... what?? Here not only the physical property but also every kind of property / attribute that the once existed things / non-things had is unrecognisable now (once again a limitation of vaak) It is this state that perfectly describes the four fold meaning of Nirguna. This is prior to creation. And then the I-ness starts showing up. About I-ness, this also-known as Consciousness is supposed to be expanding and contracting. There are proofs cited by Acharyas to this effect. They have also spoken about the absence of consciousness under specific circumstances at the finite world. This pre-supposes the absence of the same at cosmic level or in other words, or in words generally described, "the consciousness prior to creation is at un-conditioned state". Another note:- I wish not to indulge in saguna- nirguna argument any longer, since the two great pillars of Thought, fed by Great Acharyas have delved indepth in to them. My attempt is an independant query, without allegiance to any particular Thought and to understand it in the light of my limited knowledge, perception and observation of the outer world and more IMPORTANTLY, the sruti (Vedas, upanishads and Brahma sutras for testimony and Gita for cross reference and proof if needed) Finally I dont say that I have expoused or proved anything in these posts. But what I want to say is if there is a choice between a proposition that is ligically impossible and a proposition whose meaning is not fully understandable by one, then I stick to the second alternative:-)

yes, if mind and vak can answer / describe It, then It is saguna. Yatho vaacho nivarthanthE.. Only when It can't be described, It is Nirguna - a state perceived by rishis like Sanaka in silence..

The NAsadIya passage of Rig veda provides excellent clues to the questions like when did I-ness begin and at what stage the Brahman is Nirguna and saguna. It says that before creation began, qualities did not arise. That stage can not even be called as nothingness (nor zero). Nor even as darkness. Because it is said later only, that from where conception seems to arise, a blinding darkness first appeared. So prior to this, the “It’ which constituted (if this term is correct) this stage was just not this , not this and even this ‘not this’ attribute does not seem to describe the situation. This is a perfect state of Nirguna. At this stage no presence is there, no absence is there. Nor even nothingness is there. The upanishadic vachan that He is not a male, nor a female and nor even an eunuch can not be applied to this state. For by purport this vachan indicates Him as male by calling Him as HE. Even that He –ness is an attribute. This is one proof that the ‘Him’ of Upanishads is saguna. Then by the time (?) the It reached a stage that “It willed, may I become many”, the first sign of I-ness appears. What was the status of this I-ness until then is what no one can know, because nothing was conceived until then. But the moment It willed, the It loses its nirguna status, because the will or the thought is an attribute making Its status saguna. The saguna status further springs out when It comes to be known as Brahman. It is Brahmaandam , therefore It is Brahman and Brahmaandam is an attribute. It grows, therefore It is Barhman and growing is an attribute. Perhaps the ‘ekah’ state is Nirguna in limited application of the 4-fold meaning applicable in Sanskrit. Since ekah itself is an attribute He is saguna, perhaps with a singular attribute (at that level) (be back again)

Thinking about how I can justify the problem of opposites in modern language, I am tempted to use the analogy given by Stephen Covey in his book on 7 habits. The diabolically opposite attributes are like the two ends of a stick. If one end of the stick is success, the other end is failure. If you are near success, then you are far removed from failure. It depends on where you are in the stick. The idea is that for any given thing there are two different attributes which are exclusive to each other. Every matter in this universe has this ‘attribute’, like, day and night, light and darkness, heat and cold etc. But what we fail to notice is that the two attributes actually do not ‘exist’. Its only one attribute that exists and the other is perceived in the absence of the one attribute. It is like this. If we say that there is darkness, we are wrong. Darkness is the absence of something. It can be absence of light. Light can be bright, dim and can be measured in intensity. But darkness is just darkness. When light goes off, there is darkness. Similarly, night means the absence of day. Coldness means the absence of heat. Heat can be measured, not so with cold. Cold is designated as heat in such and such sub-zero temperatures of heat! Similarly death is then absence of life. But when light is gone, from where does the darkness come? When a thing loses the heat, from where does the coldness come? The plausible answer is that both cohabit (if this term is correct)all the time, but at any one time, only one of it is perceived. The moment that is not perceived, the other becomes perceptive. Thus this cohabitation is not a logical absurdity, as darkness is not the opposite of light, nor is cold the opposite of heat. They are just the absence of the other as perceived by the observer. This logic is applicable universally. In our social life this logic is unfortunately used only with reference to Brahmins as in Brahmin vs non- Brahmin difference. If a particular sect is called as Brahmins, then all those other than them are non-brahmins. A similar yardstick with reference to other castes must be used to denote the contrary nature. Then we will have non- mudhaliars as opposites of Mudhaliars, non-Vokkaligas as opposites of Vokkaligas and so on. In this way opoosite of white is not black, it is non-white. And the opposite of not writing on internet is ---any guess? Yes, it is 'not- writing on internet'. It is not reading. Reading has its opposite, not-reading! (be back again)

The most famous vAkhya to show the contradictory nature is 'ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti’. This is a straightforward ontological statement commenting upon the unitive nature of the Absolute, that God is one. “God is one, despite sages calling it by various names”, is the meaning. But by negation, we are tempted to ask, if he is one, how can he be many (going by the many names He has)? The contradictory term used here is anekam or anantham, whereas the opposite of ekah is 'naikah', not anekam or anantham. He is ekam. Ekam eva dvithiyam. (upanishad) He is only one without a second. That means there is no other entity as Brahman. There is only one Brahman. If ekah means ‘he is one only’, the opposite word naikah means ‘he is not one only’. He is One in the sense of being unique in having everything in all the Universe as His possession; but He is not one only, since there are all these other things which are His glorious vibhUtis or extensions which are of a nature different from His. He is the antaryAmi of all that exists. (remember the Upanishad – usage of sambhUti and asambhUti) Since He has as His glorious possessions all that are of a nature different from His, He is not One only. To quote the gItA in support - "nAnto'sti mama divyAnAm vibhUtInAmparamtapa" (11.40) - "O arjuna, There is no end to the divine glories of Mine (What I have stated in detail is only a small part of My glories)". This kind of explanation by Immediate inference brings in the contradiction of Nirguna & Saguna nature and how they can co-exist in the one and only Brahman. The difference in the popular philosophies can be traced to none other than Sanskrit grammar!! The context is sahasra nama. When a word is a pronoun or a sarvanAma, (and the words viSvam, ekah etc. are sarvanAma-s when they have their traditional meanings), then it is declined similar to the word sarva, and the dative singular is "sarvasmai, viSvasmai,ekasmai etc." (Panini sUtra 1.1.27). However, when the same words is not treated as a pronoun, and instead refers to something special, like the specific name of a person (e.g., ekah as a person's actual name), then the word is declined like an ordinary noun such as narah, and not as a pronoun. Then the dative singular is declined as sarvAya, viSvAya, ekAya, etc. The example given in explanation of this sUtra by SrISa Candra Vasu in his "AshTAdhyAyI of pANini" is that of the word "sarva" meaning "everything" (a pronoun) vs. sarva being the name of a person (an ordinary noun). The former is declined as a pronoun, and the latter is declined as an ordinary noun like narah. The followers of the advaita sampradAyam consider the different sarvanAma-s that occur in SrI vishNu sahasra nAma as pronouns representing Brahman, whereas the followers of the viSishTAdvaitasampradAyam treat each of the nAma-s as a distinct personification of bhagavAn in His different Forms, and thus each sarvanAma word that occurs as a nAma in sahasra nAmam is treated as a special nAma of bhagavAn with its own special meaning, each a proper noun in its own right, and not treated as a pronoun standing for Brahman. This seems to explain the difference in the nAmAvaLi, based on grammar as well as the context in connection with the philosophy pursued. More on the co-existence of seemingly contradictory attributes in the next post.

According to philosophy, truth can be established when the relationship is between the intent and the object perceived. The reference to an object, which has value and certain determined consequences as an object among the other physical objects alone makes it true or false. Falsity is that which pertains to the value of a judgement we pass with regard to an occurrence, what interpretation we place on the datum given rather than the existence of the datum itself. In the statement, --------------- “ in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world, so the net effect is zero” ------------------- the object is the people of Satya yuga and the intent is their nature, i.e., being good. When these two are related, the consequence and the related cognition can be made, according to the above stated notion of what is true and false (Ramanjacharya’s exposition). If it be said that this results or pre-supposes or concludes a negation of this statement in another object (people of Kali yuga), then that is not Inference, but passing of a Value judgement. When value judgement creeps in, falsity occurs. In fact, Vedanta recognizes 3 of such kind of negation. One is abhAva, absence of a thing, another is anupalAbdhi, non- apprehension of a thing and third is this, the contradictory of something. They are designated as PrAgabhAva and PradhvamsAbhAva, that is, contradictory to the existence or contradictory to the emergence of a thing into existence. This means that when one thing exists, the other can not exist, just as there is a conflict between good an devil. Though we may come across many persons who are bad in some ways and good in others, but certainly not good and bad with respect to the same thing at the same time. But there is no locus standi to assume that one is good in one place with respect to something means there is another who will be bad at another place. To explain this we have to go back to logic (my previous post) and the theory of Truth and Falsity as mentioned in the beginning of this mail. To show how the contradictory statements are analysed with reference to the given subject, let me quote how the similar contradictory terms, SambhUti and AsambhUti (vinAsha) (birth & non-birth) as used in the Upanishad (Isha- 14). Here we find that A-sambhUti means not death but the destruction of impediments to birth into Divine life. This shows the contradictory term is used as that which is the ‘other’ of the first one and not as an opposite meaning that can be applied at any other context. Thus context is very important in arriving at the inference! My next post deals with how this problem of opposites must be treated in context.

In my speech i am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness), i would assume that the same amount of negative acoustic energy and same amount of foolishness (or intelligence) is produced some where by some body else, hence the sum is Zero. …………………………………………………… yes in Satya yuga most people in THIS world would have been good, but there must have been a Kali Yuga in some other world, so the net effect is zero ------------------- These two statements deal with the problem of opposites, but which are of two different situations. They can be analysed for their admissibility at two levels, viz, logically and philosophically. First lets analyse by logical tools. These statements come under the Rule of Inference by Opposition. By this rule, we infer immediately a new proposition from the given one. This rule states that the relation of two propositions (the new one and the given one – the inferred, new one is that many are bad in kaliyuga at some other world and the given one is that many are good in Krutha yuga in one / given world) must have same subject and predicate. Here they do not have the same subject and predicate (in both the examples quoted). Therefore, by a cursory look, the inference stands fallacious. To fulfil the rule, of the probable types of Inference by opposition, only Contrary Inference is applicable. Here again the Inference will run like this. The given proprosition is “Many are good in krita yuga” The inference is “ Therefore only a few are bad in Krita yuga” Or “I am producing some amount of acoustic energy and some amount of intelligence (or foolishness)” The Inference is “Therefore I am not producing all negative acoustive energy and all that is foolishness” If we say many are bad in kaliyuga, that is not an inference of many are good in kritha yuga, as that is by itself a different proposition. If we say so, then we incurring The Fallacy of Two particular premises. It is like telling Some Asians are Indians. Some Asians are Chinese. Therefore some Indians are Chinese. We can not combine two particular premises, here kritha yuga and kali yuga and try to draw an inference. They are disjunct and exclusive. Two disjunct statements can not be squeezed into one set nor can one become sub-set of the other. Therefore the inferences of the two statements do not stand scrutiny by logic.

In the study of any concept of Vedanta, we encounter three problems. 1) understanding the meaning of the text and its purport 2) the methodology that is applicable and appropriate to the given issue and 3) the level of mental and spiritual growth of the seeker. It is because of this we arrive at a variety of inferences which at times lead us away from the original purport. But the remarkable feature of Vedanta is that all methods lead us to the one conclusion, provided we undertake the right methodology. There is an element of choice, even of innovation in the Vedic system and together with the mental system, they help us arriving at answers appropriate to the mental of the seeker. There is always scope for improvisation, if and when the seeker is not satisfied with the existing level of understanding. It is with this awareness, the issues must be explained. To understand this, let me say like this. Question some body showing the symbol Pi. Majority may say it is 22 / 7. Some may say it is a radian measure. Very few may state it is a function or so. But ask a Vedantin immersed in deeper meanings of the texts, he will say that it signifies none other than Krishna!! Particularly the following hymn, Gopi bhaagya madhu vraata Shrngisho dadhisandhiga Khalajivita khaataava Galahaataarasandhara This hymn is in the praise of God Krishna that gives the value of Pi to the 32 decimal places as .31415926535897932384626433832792 How? Vedic knowledge is in the form of slokas or poems in Sanskrit verse. A number was encoded using consonant groups of the Sanskrit alphabet, and vowels were provided as additional latitude to the author in poetic composition. The coding key is given as Kaadi nav, taadi nav, paadi panchak, yaadashtak ta ksha shunyam. Translated as below letter "ka" and the following eight letters letter "ta" and the following eight letters letter "pa" and the following four letters letter "ya" and the following seven letters, and letter "ksha" for zero. In other words, · ka, ta, pa, ya = 1 · kha, tha, pha, ra = 2 · ga, da, ba, la = 3 · gha, dha, bha, va = 4 · gna, n a, ma, scha = 5 · cha, ta, sha = 6 · chha, tha, sa = 7 · ja, da, ha = 8 · jha, dha = 9 · ksha = 0 Thus pa pa is 11, ma ra is 52. Words kapa, tapa , papa, and yapa all mean the same that is 11. It was upto the author to choose the one that fits the meaning of the verse well. Based on this the value of the hymn on Krishna is found to be the value of Pi. With this understanding - that Vedanta is explained / interpreted by means of many branches of knowledge – all leading to the one concept of Brahman, let me address the issues raised in this page by means of tools of logic, philosophy, mathematics etc. (be back again)

By the four-fold interpretation of the terms Brahman and Bhagavan, it is clear that Brahman is Nirguna and Bhagavan is Saguna. (Will be back again)

Any term in Sanskrit is the derivation of the taatparya / meaning of the term itself. That is, it is a kAraNa-p –peyar. And what types of meanings are derived? In Indian literature of yore (Kaavyaprakaasha), it is held that the power of words to denote the taatparya /meanings are of three types, namely, Denotative,Figurative and Purportive.The purportive signification of words is, by some, maintained to be different from The suggestive signification. And accordingly the power of words is also said to befour-fold, including suggestive signification. The root and the meaning of the term Brahman in the light of the four-fold power of words can be explained thus.(The first two Brahma sutras describe the meaning of Brahman) “….the word Brahman is seen to derive its meaning from the association of ‘brihattva’, i.e., greatness (with the thing denoted by it); and whatever greatness is by nature as well as by qualities, unsurpassed in excellence, that is its primary and natural meaning.And He (who possesses such greatness) is alone the Lord of All . Hence the word Brahman is primarily used to signify Him alone.”The four-fold meaning as incorporated in the term‘brihattva’ (it is brahmaandam in terms of denotative, figurative, purportive and suggestive implications)becomes the ‘primary and natural meaning’ of Brahman. Hence it is Brah-man and not bram-han. The second meaning is ,“ that which is characterized by means of accidental characteristics is Greatness unsurpassed in excellence: and it is Growth also, because the root‘brih’ (to grow) is capable of that meaning. And the creation, preservation and destruction of the world constitute the accidental characteristics of that.(Brahman is thus made out to be Greatness and Growth) Thus Brahman means that which is Great and Grows. Now the term Bhagavan. The word 'Bhagavan' means 'One who possesses 'bhaga'. 'Bhaga' is the collective possession of the six qualities of supremacy, valor, renown, auspiciousness, knowledge, and detachment. The one who possesses all these in full is called 'Bhagavan'. Who is this Bhagavan? The clues to this are derived from Thirukkural and Bhagavad Gita. The very first verse of ThirukkuraL describes God as Bhagavan,(a sanskrit term in a Tamil work!)and not by the other popular Tamil terms such as kadavuL, iRaivan etc. Scholars and commentators say that since Bhagavan (derived from Bhagavaan) describes the 6 virtues of the Lord as mentioned above and since no other word exists to describe the Lord with these 6 qualities, Thiruvalluvar has adopted this sanskrit word. It is further explained that Adhi Bhagavan means 'the first Lord'. This verse by the expression, 'adhi bhagavan mudhattrE ulagu'(the world that has Him as the first Lord) has the primary stress on 'world'and not on the Lord. That is because the very exitence of the world pre-supposes the existence of the Lord just as how the presence of smoke establishes the presence of fire.The specific use of the term Bhagavan in this verse also establishes the primacy to the 6 attributes enshrined in this term. Now the question whom does this Bhagavan refer to. The authentication is drawn from the Gita where the Lord says that He is the A-kaaram ('agara mudala ezhuththu' in KuraL)Therefore 'Bhagavan' (referred to as 'agaram'in KuraL) refers to Lord Krishna. Since a number of quotes can be drawn from the sruthi texts that Lord Sriman Narayana is Brahman, we can say that Brahma shabdam denotes Narayana and Bhagavad shabdam denotes Krishna. Though both are the same Lord in different names, the differences in names come by the four-fold symbolism (mentioned above)of the names, by which the Lord appears /symbolises as part of His Lila.

The following is an article found in www.IndiaNest.com. Recently, US President (& Author of Declaration of Independence of United States) Thomas Jefferson's paternity of his slave Sally Fleming's children has been in news. For nearly 200 years, since US president Thomas Jefferson's time, many traditionalists maintained that Jefferson did not cohabit with Sally. But some descendents of Sally maintained otherwise and claimed to be progeny of the ex-president. This old historical controversy has now been resolved using modern genetic DNA analysis methods (Reference - Founding father by Eric S Lander & Joseph J Ellis and Foster et al, Nature | Volume 396 | 5 November 1998 | pages 14, 27-28). The genetic DNA study of descendents of Jefferson family and Sally Fleming's family, has confirmed with very high probability that, US President Thomas Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of the sons of Sally Fleming. How was this genetic work done? Geneticists used a scientific fact, that most of the male Y-chromosome is passed intact from father to son. Females do not carry the Y-chromosome. With modern advances in genetics, this fact has been used to trace paternal lineage, and resolve stories like Thomas Jefferson's. Thomas Jefferson did not have surviving sons from his legal wife. But his paternal uncle's male lineage is in tact to present time. The genetic Y-chromosome of these persons (eight generations down from Thomas Jefferson's paternal uncle) living at present time was used as the reference. This was compared with intact male line persons from (Five generations down from) Sally Fleming living presently. The geneticists used polymorphic markers so that Y-chromosome can be distinguished by haplotypes. They found that Sally Fleming's son Eston's male line progeny had same haplotypes as Field Jefferson who was paternal uncle of Thomas Jefferson. Using other physical and living proximity factors, the geneticists have concluded with high probability that Eston Fleming was the son of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Fleming. This class of human male lineage research is now very active and is being conducted in native populations of Wales, England, in Iceland and to establish uniqueness, paternity, historical lineage, medical issues and intellectual issues of heredity etc amongst various population groups. Does this not ring a bell amongst traditional Hindus who believe in 'gothra' identification carried down from Sanathana-dharma orthodoxy?. 'Gothra' is an identity carried by male lineage in India from time immemorial. Most people have gothra chain names traceable to Rig Vedic Rishis like 'Gowthama', 'Vasishta' 'Viswamithra' and to first sons of Vaivaswatha Manu like Angirasa & Bhrigu. Purana such as Vishnu Purana refer to individual identity through 'Gothra'. Listings of more than 250 Gothra chains have been explicitly listed. I have heard of instances of Muslims converted from Hinduism still keeping track of their 'Gothra'. For example we know that Buddha, named Siddhartha was of 'Gowthama Gothra'. It means that his Y-chromosomes were probably from Rig-Vedic Rishi 'Gowthama Rahoogana'. How did the people of 3000-4000 years ago realize that genetically there was transference of some unique characteristics only from father to son (in the form of Y-chromosomes)? In recent past when it was fashionable to condemn all Indian traditional systems as of no value, non-believers have referred to 'Gothra' as archaic, unscientific, irrelevant and male chauvinistic! Modern DNA & genetic research has confirmed male line Y-chromosomal transference, through 8 generations in case of Thomas Jefferson. 'Gothra' in essence really stands for Y-chromosomal identity. Nearly 2500 years have passed since death of Buddha, but many 'Gowthama Gothra' individuals exist now also. They can claim genetic relation to Buddha. Typically 4 generations occur in 100 years and in 2500 years nearly 100 generations are complete. Other 'Gothra' chains may have run 100-200 generations from Vedic period if male lineage did continue unbroken. Do Y-chromosomes remain intact after, say 100 generations of unbroken male issues? Genetic mutations may or may not have changed some Y-chromosomes. This appears to be a very interesting field of research for future to see if persons of same 'Gothra' in the present generations have common and unique Y-chromosomal features. – Dr S.Balakrishna

Words speak a hundred meaning... Indeed. You have your words to speak about you, your awareness level and spiritual growth. A simple information. Dr David Frawley is a very respected person in academic and spiritual circles, who has been named as Vama deva by his Guru, since he possessed such kind of knowledge that the Vedic rishi Vama deva possessed. The rest about him is spoken by his works, as in his case his works speak not just a hundred but thousands of meanings which reveal the ancient knowledge of Vediks and Ayurveda, Jyothis and so on, besides the spiritual development he has attained!! He is an easy guide to the seekers who have not yet realised the worth of looking into sruti texts.

Aryans = Hebrews? Aryans - 'came'? My request cum advice. pl read David Frawley before making any comment. His is a must be read for any Hindu.

Navagrahas are talked about in Jyothisha, not in sruti texts. These grahas change from time to time as even Dhruva mandala changes from manvathra to manvanthra. But what continues is the existence in sharira, in physical terms. Even among the navagrahas, early texts do not include Rahu and Ketu. Mandhi which was included then has been given up now. Their relevance is something else and not to be mixed with lokas. (Pl read my mails under Nadi astrology) You have written in your post the three levels, one, the lokas upto satya loka and the other you have written is about transcendance of Jiva. The last one is about how to view them in spiritual and meta-physical terms. For your quote on Brahma samhita, I request you to read my recent mail “Holy books”. If you still have doubts, you are free to tell me. Please go to the following link to read more on how lokas are described. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tgRnV5mUGTEJ:www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/lo-lz.htm+derivation+of+the+sanskrit+word+loka&hl=en

But according to historians Gita is only 300BC old not 3000BC as some believe, so it can't be the literal word of Sri Krishna, rather is was written by a Vyasa who lived in this time. Like I said many times before ... Writing skills not so advanced in India around the time Kaliyuga began (3100 BC according to Mahabratha). Aryans (Hebrews from Mesotampia Regions) came to India around 4,600 B.C (some went to Egypt at the same time and began Egyptian dynasties) and brought together with them the skills of writing (as found in Mesotamphia by archeologists) to India. From this writing, Sanksrit began and flourished and puranas and the Gita were written down in the form you see today. Please read the articles by David Frawley shattering the myth of Aryan Invasion in http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/aryan0.html The antiquity of Vedic culture is discussed in 27 articles proving it to be indegenous and as mother of all civilisations of the world. The views expressed in these articles are gaining acceptance among historians and archelogists and they are to be read by everyone interested in Hindu Thought. Second, about the holy book for Hindus. There are two ways of looking at this, those who follow a particular guru or sect, follow the scriptures that have been used by the sect or guru to propagate their views which are regarded as holy books by them and there are those who rely only on texts which have been regarded as apourusheyam (not authored by anyone). In the former case, the holy books differ from sect to sect, here I mean the sect as saivites or vaishnavites or Krishna conscious people etc. The second category people are rare to find nowadays, but the seers of yore relied on them. Only Vedas and Upanishads have been accepted by seers as pramana sashtras. Every other text draws their input from them only. So there are two routes to gain knowledge. Either read the pramana texts and understand them or read the other texts which are the result of ‘progressive simplication of Truth’. But for any seeker of Truth, the Pramana sashtras alone give the true picture. It is in this background we analyse the Svethaswathara Upanishad as told by Guest2. That is the only Upanishad which is repeatedly identifying Rudra as Brahman, while the other Upanishads identify Narayana as Brahman. (Please read my post on Brahman & Brahma posted in the last 24 hours). Grammatically and by purport, Rudra, Shiv and Shambhu have meanings that do not make them equated to Brahman. But in this Upanishad, wherever Rudra is mentioned, it is in the context of Brahman. Therefore Rudra of Shvethaswara Upanishad is indeed Narayana (according to ancient seers) and therefore Krishna according to recent gurus. If we take a holistic approach, we find that the Hindu thought from Rig vedas to the more recent texts is a progressive simplification of philosophical as well as meta-physical views. The vedas were the most complex and the upanishads came as a simplification of the vedas. The Aranyakas followed suit and further simplification for mass consumption occurred in the form of Ithihaasas and Puranas. This simplification can be noticed in the concept of moksham (taking moksham as an example- concept. Other important ones to have undergone progressive simplification are the concepts of Agni & Sri). From doing continuous penance to attain moksham, in Rik vedic period to the aham-annam and aham-annadam realization in upanishadic period to sharanagathi tattwa (Gita - sarva dharman paridyajya…)to Bhakti yoga in the present period is a simplified route to Moksham in accordance with yuga dharma. It is possible that in future, some future guru may even bring out a much simpler route depending on the needs / demands of the time. What we must take note of in this progressive simplification is that the authors have relied on the next immediate complex ( the preceding one) form of thought. For the current period, we find the Gita becoming the base of interpretation, therefore the ‘holy’ book. About a 1000 years ago, the 2 Ithihasas were much relied upon. During the period of Ithihasas, Upanishads were the ‘holy’ books. But all these reflect the apourusheya notions of Vedas. The ‘holiness’ is due to the universality and eternal nature of the Truth contained in them. It is not because who told them to whom. To connect the holiness to someone who told or heard them is like telling that the laws of motion are holy or true because they were told by Newton, while the fact is that Newton only perceived those laws which are in existence always. Vedas too reveal the Truth which is in existence always. The seers perceived them in their heightened spiritual awareness!

If you have information on what constitutes Bhuloka from Brahma samhita and Bhagavatham, please do give them. Such information must have already answered your question. But from Taiitriya upanishad and the verses from Yajur veda which I have quoted, it is being said that Bhuloka constitutes prithvi, that is the land mass that we stand on. From outside the atmosphere, anthariksham begins where is embedded the galaxies and Dhruva mandalam. It is being said that it is not right to view these worlds in our dimension. Taittriya upanishad says, Bhu loka is agni tattwa, Bhuvar loka is vaayu tattwa and Suvar loka is adhitya tattwa. The First chapter of this upanishad details the first 3 lokas in different ways. It is difficult to comprehend them all and say 'yes, this is this.' Because, they all can be explained at nearly 7 levels in accordance with the person's spiritual understanding. Taiittriya upanishad says differently like this: Prithvi is agni, therefore Bhu. Since vayu is said to be Bhuvar,the atmosphere is bhuvar. But it does not say that Aditya or Sun is Suvar. It is swarga which is suvar loka. Whereas Aditya is Maholoka. Tai upa says that a sage by name Mahasamasya showed us the Maholoka. Beyond this, lokas are not talked about. Only the Jiva's transcendance is talked about, through annam, pranam, manas, vijyanam and aanandham which is the Ultimate. Coming to lokas, Tai upa also says prana is Bhu, apaana is Bhuvar, vyaana is suvar and annam is maholoka. Bhu is agni, bhuvar is vayu, suvar is adhitya and Maholoka is Chandra!! Here one should not take the meaning as moon. Chandra is mano kaaraka who is responsible for thinking, thoughts. This passage is interpreted as thus. Bhu is agni and since our body itself is agni (The explanation for this will run into a long mail. Suffice it to say that the word sharira is a sanskrit derivative of a term which means a place where yajna by agni is being continuously done (source : Garbhopanishad). Added to this is the agni Vaisvanara, the Lord Himself who is residing in the body. - refer BG and Braham sutras for details),life in this body is Bhu. Since Bhuvar is vayu and is in anthariksham, the life after death, when prana as vayu continues to live is Bhuvar. Our life shuttles in between these two levels for most time. If one escapes to the 3 rd level, that is a place of Adithya, that is supposed to be Swarga.(whether swarga is a a state of existance or a material plane has been discussed by me in many mails in another group a few years ago.I will probably reproduce them at an appropriate time). One survives in mind level at Maholoka. Texts say that upto this level (4 th level partially) pralaya affects the equilibrium. This implies that all the visible universe comes within the 1st 3 levels. Taii upa also says that Bhu is Rik veda. Bhuvar, sama veda, suvar yajur veda and maho, Om-kara. By and far the bhu loka alone is perceivable by us. It is where the jivas exist in physical form as sharira.The texts that I have quoted are silent on what you have asked. By implication i deduce it to be the prithvi, the land mass that was once lifted by varaha and by purport, I consider Bhu to be a state of existance in sharira. I have another reason to say this. If you have read my mail on Mars being the son of Earth in this forum, I have brought out how another manvanthra continues at another plane, in a changed group of company of planets and another sun itself. The Bhu can not be changing from time to time. Hence I consider that physical existance anywhere (in any manvanthra or kalpa) is Bhu, and not necesarily the accomapnying celetial planets.

Brahma & Brahman are different. The first two Brahma sutras define what is Brahman. "The word Brahman is seen to derive its meaning from the association of ‘brihattva’, i.e., greatness (with the thing denoted by it); and whatever greatness is by nature as well as by qualities, unsurpassed in excellence, that is its primary and natural meaning.And He (who possesses such greatness) is alone the Lord of All . Hence the word Brahman is primarily used to signify Him alone.” Once again in the second sutra, another dimension of‘brah’ is discussed.The sutra is‘ Janmaadyasya yatah’(the brahman is that) from whom (proceed) the creation etc., of this (universe)In his Sri bhashya, Sri Ramanuja goes on to establish Brahman on the basis of what he calls accidental characteristics, like the power to create etc. According to him, this is established by nothing other than the very term Brahman itself.In his own words,“ that which is characterized by means of accidental characteristics is Greatness unsurpassed in excellence: and it is Growth also, because the root ‘brih’ (to grow) is capable of that meaning. And the creation, preservation and destruction of the world constitute the accidental characteristics of that.(Brahman thus made out to be Greatness and Growth)” This Brahman is one and one only, without a second. This means there is no equal to Brahman. Every other god is created by It and is inferior to It. In this context the first created one is Brahma deva who was entrusted with the job of creation of all universes. All the other gods are created ones after the creation of Brahma. Which god is this Brahman? According to Panini's grammer, the term Brahman is a a common noun signifying certain qualities. Any one possessed with these qualities can be termed as Brahman. And the only God who fulfills this definition is Narayana. Though a number of verses can be quoted from Sruti & smriti texts to substantiate this, the two-fold meaning the term Narayana fulfils the charaterics of the common noun Brahman, making Him the one and only Brahman.

There are some clues in puranas asto how to understand myths like this. They say that the present Manvanthra is born to Sun and the next Manvanthra will be born to Sun and his wife Chaaya. If Chaaya is the shadow binary of Sun, there is scope to believe that this binary will collide or come dangerously closer asto disturb the present planetary system. The resultant system will have this earth still habitable with a new (altered or surviving) race of Manu. The further Manus also are described as being born to the son of the present Sun. If this is cosmologically true (possible anyway), there is scope to believe that the present sun will not have an uneventful end as a white dwarf but will become a 4th generation star upon regeneration! Interpreting in a similar way, we can say that Mars is the son of earth if it had detached from the earth sometime in the past. If science can confirm this, what our texts have described is truly cosmological!!

What i wrote in the mail was as per what is told in scriptures. If you believe soemthing else, well, you are free to do. All the other 6 lokas are superior to us and they have been described by various texts as 'planes of existance'. The same jivas that are born on this earth transcend to those lokas as they grow in spiritual awareness. Even there is no 'abode' called moksha. People casually use these terms as though they have understood them as told in scriptures. Moksha means liberation. Even parama padam has not been described in texts as a place as such. It is a state of cosciousness which is final. Only Kaushitaki upanishad (1st chapter)describes Sri vaikuntam in physical terms, which was later elaborated by Ramanujacharya in Vaikuntah Gadhyam. No other loka has been described in physical terms by any sruti text. Vedas are eternal and they are retrieved for mankind's sake after pralaya. At other superior levels of existance, the beings dont undergo a loss or retrieval of vedas as they are alwyas remembering them. You will be surprised (!) to know that by implication, the sruti texts reveal that creation of worlds for man is the ultimate goal of creation for the jivas to get opportunities to shed their karmic balance and strive for liberation from the cycle of rebirth. If you go by what sruti says, scinece can never spot a planet with beings of some nature. Ours is the only plane of existance at the physical level, and to make this happen our universe has been created. The beings of other lokas live in another dimension, which can not be perceived by science, but by spiritual awakening. This is what sruti texts reveal.

NO this is not becoming defensive... The nature of smritis have been best described by none other than Hanuman himself in valmiki Ramayana when he, upon seeing Sita describes her in many ways. One such way is that she is like "smR^itiim iva samdighdaam" (like smrithi together with doubts)(sarga 15 of Sundhara khanda).Sita looked like a smrithi vakhya which was beset with doubt purports. Thus no smrithi vakhya is can be said to be perfectly understandable. But they are different for different yuga, created so for the sake of applicability and admissability in changed circumstances of different yugas. In this way, Manu smrithi is meant for Krutha yuga, Gauthama smrithi is for Thretha yuga, Sanga smrithi for Dwapara yuga and Parashara smrithi is for Kali yuga.

Yes this is what happens after each day of Brahma deva. I will post the details of this soon.

Texts speak about 3 types of pralaya. (1)The daily or the continuing pralaya, whereby everyday everywhere some degeneration takes place continuously. We see everyday people dying, animals dying and trees and plants dying. At the global level, some calamity occurs everyday at some part of the world. The kind of nature’s fury that Mumbai is experiencing is an example of this daily pralaya. What tsunami did also is daily pralaya. This keeps happening but seems to happen with more frequency and magnitude in this Maha kali yuga with pralaya side of mini chatur yuga happening. The worst happenings can be witnessed when the precession of equinoxes complete one full circle. (Scientists too expect drastic happenings when this takes place). That will be the time of the mini kali yuga period falling in Maha kaliyuaga. This period as per our calculation is between 11,298 AD and 12,738 AD. (2) The second type of pralaya happens when the first 3 lokas (mentioned in the 1st part) get destroyed. This happens when the universe we live in collapse, which is when the galaxies collapse. According to puranas, the 1st 3 lokas are destroyed full while the 4th loka, Mahar loka is partly destroyed. This, as per our calculation, is the night kalpa of a day of Brahma deva. The world rejuvinates after the night kalpa and the next day begins for Brahma deva. Like this 50 years have been over and we are in the 1st day of 51st year of Brahma’s new creation of these 3 lokas. At the end of each day of Brahma this pralaya takes place. During this period, the last 3 lokas are intact. The Lord appears asthe young child, Balakrishna on a peepal leaf after this pralaya each time. (3) The 3rd and the last type of parlaya is Maha pralaya that happens as Brahma deva completes his life time of 100 years. At this time, everything, all lokas, time, all beings, both chetanas and achetanas, all rest in the Lord in subtle form (sukshma) The Lord alone remains with jivas and matter, lying in Him undifferentiated. This goes on for an entire span of 100 years of Brahma’s life after which creation spr

Purans talk about only 7 types of lokas, namely, Bhu loka (our world), Bhuvar loka, Suvar loka, Mahar loka, Janoloka, Tapoloka and Satya loka. They also talk about 7 types of heaven (swarg) and 7 types of hell (narag) and other lokas like pithru loka. Though we don’t have description about these 7 types of heaven and hell, Yajur veda XVII.67 (pruTivyAa--svarjYothiragAmaham) gives some idea about what this swarg is about. Vedas refer to swarg or Svar Loka as the World of "Supra-Sun ".Svarga and Soorya derive their meanings from the same root. This is a world , a realm ,which is beyond the familiar rhodasi ( Heaven and earth ). This is beyond Pruthvi , anthariksham ( the interspace over which our atmposphere extends) and the celestail space ( dyauh ). Beyond anthariksham this vast space is constituted by galaxies and stars including Dhruva mandal . The Svar Loka attained due to the accumulated Punya Karmas by the jeevas is beyond this Dyauh lokam . Svar lokam is a world , a realm with Indra as the presiding deity (Svarpathi)of this supraheavenly realm. There are many other passages referring to Svarg as a world of radiance and enjoyment . However after their punyas , which got them there in the first place, get exhausted the jeevas return with their residual karma back to earth (Bhagavad Gita). This Bhuloka is described as the only world where the jiva undergoes mixed results for mixed karma (of papa & punya). In all other worlds, the kind of body that it takes and the kind of experience it undergoes are different. This shows that the laws of this world are not applicable to other lokas

Can I ask you what the other lokas are that you are referring to, so that I can write what I know about the kaliyuaga and its relevance? Please quote the source from where you know about the lokas or is it just hearsay?

I am giving here a version on vali vadham and its symbolism that I posted in another group some time ago. Faith forms the basis of any search or research into why the Lord behaved as He had.The assumptions arising from this faith is what is important, for, without getting our assumptions right we can not get the right solutions.The assumption is that Rama who is a perfect embodiment of Dharma can never be wrong. He can never be thought to have slipped from dharma at any time in Ramavadhara. Even otherwise as Brahman, He can not be said to have faltered in dharma. “Not even on accountof the peculiarity of situation can the two-foldcharacteristics (v,z., positive and negative) belongto the Highest” (Ved Sutra III-2-11). He is Positive,Pure, Auspicious and Right always. But in spite of being the embodiment of Dharma, Rama had slipped in Vali vadam. How can that be? A person can be a‘perfect’ embodiment of dharma only if he had adhered to dharma at all times and despite challenges to such adherence. If he had slipped once, how can He be called as a ‘perfect’ embodiment of dharma. Once slipped, it is slip for ever. If in spite of valivadam, Rama were to be regarded as a ‘perfect’embodiment of dharma by a long list of enlightened ones starting from sages of yore, the inference is that Rama can not have done anything adharmic in valivadam. We have on record the reasons to substantiate thatRama’s act was indeed dharmic. But that they (the reasons) have done precious little is borne by the fact that the issue still remains. The most often cited reasons are two. (1) Vali was adharmic in having driven out his younger brother who was to be treated as his own son and in having taken his wife for sam-bhogam. (2) It was only natural for a warrior like Rama to have hunted him as he happened to be a monkey. The first reason is not a strong one though this is what Rama Himself says. If younger brother is like a son and his wife the daughter-in-law, what do we say about elder brother and his wife? Father and mother,rightly. If Rama intended to punish Vali for what he did to Ruma (Sugreeva’s wife), why did he spare Sugreeva who took up Tara later? He didn’t admonish him the least. So this can not be the real reason. Taking up the second reason, that Rama decided to kill Vali was a foregone one (by virtue of the pledge he made with Agni as witness) But why did he choose the mode that was not fitting to the stature of one like Him? He could not be said to have hunted Vali, as Vali himself had noted that monkeys were not hunted.So this reason also is not a sound one. There are other reasons cited , but each one of them stands to be countered. That is why the controversy continues.The issue is not why he killed. It is why he killed while not being in direct combat. Though Vali accuses Rama initially, he gets convinced later that Rama was perfectly dharmic in His action. He recalls the Hitopadesam by Tara on Rama’s greatness, before he set out for the second combat with Sugreeva. Rama also says that He has been perfectly dharmic in what He had done. (ramO dwir na api bhaashathe). So the nuances of how this act was dharmic lies somewhere in between the Hitopadesa part of Tara and Rama’s reply to Vali.Let us analyse the scenario step by step. When Tara cautioned Vali, Vali was too confident that he would not be harmed by Rama who knows Dharma. He least believed that Rama would harm him because he(Vali) had been ‘innocent’ and that he had not done any offence (aparAdam) to Rama. He repeats the samething to Rama after he was hit by Him. “I didn’t offend you in any way in your country or your town. I didn’t humiliate you in any way.” Just by applying logic found in this defence of Vali,shall we say that had he not offended Rama, if not in Rama’s place, but in his own place (vali’s territory)and humiliated Rama in some way, could Rama had given him the end in the way as it was? In order to understand the nuances, let us remind ourselves that there was no going back on killing Vali as far as Rama was concerned. The moment He went around the fire and pledged to sugreeva that he would kill Vali, Vali’s fate was sealed. So the issue was not why He killed. The question whether Vali committed any offence or not as to attract a death sentence from Rama is irrelevant (based on the pledge that Rama gave to Sugreeva). But that he was killed in a particular fashion alone gets connected with some cause, probably an offence to Rama. And Vali himself has acknowledged the fact that Rama would not kill unless one has offended Him. As until long Vali was not in any way connected with Him, the offence must have taken place later. Since the killing was in an indirect mode, the offence must also have been in an indirect mode.If we proceed with this line of reasoning, we get ample evidence to show that Vali had indeed offended Rama in an indirect way. He seemed to have come into grasp of this indirect offence gradually as he continued to talk to Rama. One can see a palpable shift in Vali’s tone from being accusative to submissive thereby indicating that wisdom had dawned on him slowly and lately. It starts with Vali’s talks on Raj-dharma. As he continued to speak of raj-dharma, Rama’s commitment to‘dhushtah nigraha- sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind and wonders “you have to do something, but you have done some other thing”.What is that something and some other thing is again spelt by Vali himself. “You have failed to show your paraakramam on the one who had offended you, namely Ravana, but instead you have shown your paraakramamon me who had not offended you’”Is Vali right when he said that he had not offended Rama? Vali himself does not think so. For he proceeds to ask (unprovoked) “If only you have asked me to restoreSita, I would have got her back within a day. If only you had approached me, I would have killed Ravana in combat, pulled him to you and got back Sita. If only you had commanded me I, like Hayagreeva who restored Vedas from Madu-kaidapa, would have gone after Ravana, searched for Sita even if she had been hidden inside the oceans, and restored her back to you.” So Vali himself thinks that there is some cause for grouse by Rama about him. Vali knows what Rama requires. Vali knows that he (vali) is quite capable of fulfilling that requirement. But he has not done that. He had not risen to the occasion. Why should he,is the question that comes to our mind. In what way he is bound to help Rama when Rama had not sought his help. This is the message conveyed by Vali. He thinks that because of his not rising to the occasion, Rama had killed him unseen. He expresses this in his talk(that continues from the above mentioned one).“ It is perfectly legitimate for Sugreeva to aspire for the throne after me. It is perfectly legitimate for him to kill me to attain the throne. But Rama, it is not legitimate on your part to hit me when I am fighting with another”, says Vali. “If you think it is legitimate, tell me how”, says Vali before he collapses.So the issue now centres around whether Rama considered the non-rising to the occasion of Vali asan offence. The answer is yes, going by what Rama says in the beginning and at the end of his defence. Rama replies that He had been perfectly dharmic in what He had done by having done that in the land belonging to Ikshvahu dynasty (He says that the entire Bhoo mandalam is under His dynasty (Ram Rajya?)) By this does He point out to Vali that he had failed to carry out the dharma in his (Vali’s) land? Vali spoke of all Raj-dharma that included protecting the dharmain one’s land and punishing the offenders. Did he follow that Raj-dharma? He knew that Sita had been abducted. He knew the one who had abducted her was once defeated by him. He was more valiant than the abductor and could have easily overpowered him if he had made an attempt. Further the abduction was carried out in a land that belonged to beings like him. And Sita was carried across his kingdom.Sugreeva had seen the abduction. So did Vali.Sugreeva did not do anything to stop it, he being incapable of doing that. But Vali could have stopped it, he being capable and in his capacity as a king who has to stop crimes in his land and punish the offenders.Vali had known that Sita had been abducted and as a king must have been well aware that she had been carried right across his land. But he didn’t do anything about it, despite being powerful enough to stop it or restore her. He didn’t do anything later -to even go after Ravana for having unauthorisedly crossed his land and committed a crime. Rama didn’t wait for Bharatha’s command to execute Raj-dharma.For whose command did Vali wait to go after Ravana?Or for that matter for whose command the bird, Jatayu waited to take on Ravana? The sense of duty that a pakshi (bird) had, a monkey king didn’t have.Vali need not have offended Rama directly. But that he had failed in his duty has indirectly offended Rama. By remaining passive, he has allowed Ravana get away with Sita across his territory. This passiveness amounts to assisting the crime which in today’s jargonis known as abetting. The one who turns away his face when a crime is being committed is not spared by lawof any land. He, as an abettor is liable for punishment equivalent to that awarded for the actual crime committed. By his act of abetting and by being indifferent in his duty as a king, Vali has offended Rama. Since his offence is not of direct nature, the hit he received from Rama was not of direct nature. This can further substantiated by what Rama says aboutthe slaying. Never even once did Rama say that he punished him. He said that he only gave him a‘praayaschittham’ (atonement). He repeats the same to Tara when she appears in the scene. His repeated reminders about stealing another man’s wife (though outwardly seeming to refer to Ruma) in effect is aimed at reminding vali the real kind of stealing, which is the abduction that Ravana committed. (We are led to believe that Rama meant only this for the following reason. In Ruma’s case and in Tara’s case, the winning of the women happened after winning a combat. And such exchange seemed to have happened smoothly with the acceptance of the women themselves – something applicable to the dharma of the species in which they were born. Sugreeva did not abandon Ruma after Vali was slayed, nor did Ruma think it necessary to demonstrate her pathi vradhai quality. The abduction of a married woman and the consequence of the same are of serious dimensions for humans and no need to say that this applies to the divine couple. That Vali had failed to contribute his might in stopping it happen or restoring Sita by his own volition seems to be the factor being reminded by Rama repeatedly. Now let us see the symbolism of this episode.It is ‘Dharma is not seen to the eyes of the one who is steeped in adharma.”Vali could not see Rama, the embodiment of Dharma, ashe (Vali) was adharmic (in ways explained). For such a person, any punishment or ‘haany’ would seem to originate from nowhere – unable to be predicted by the person. Vali was groping in the dark because the adharmaic thinking stoped him from seeing what was dharmic.Any release from such a predicament is possible by atonement only. This is what Rama did to Vali. This is what Bheeshma did on the arrow-bed. To elaborate on this, history records only three persons as capable ofunderstanding Dharma, the course of which is complex and which is of different nature under different circumstances. They are Bheeshma, Yudhishtra andVidura. ( We don’t include Rama here for He is acomplete embodiment of Dharma, not just one who has understood dharma) Of these three, Bheeshma stuck to swadharma at the expense of para-dharma and allowed vasthra –haaran to take place. Yudhishtra sacrificed swadharma to aid inthe victory of Dharma when he eliminated Drona from the battle field. Vidura hardly faced dilemma of this sort, but stuck to dharma always. Of the first two Bheeshma had to do atonement for having sacrificed dharma at the altar of his swa-dharma. He could not save the cause for which he sacrificed dharma, nor did the factors connected to his swa-dharma came to his help at a crucial juncture.I refer to the boon he received about choosing the time of his death which was related to his(swa-dharma) vow of protecting the throne. In the war when he was continuously hit, initially he hears the vasus and rishis saying him that his end has come.Listening to them he decides to leave out his pranan.But as that was happening, Ganga devi sends rishis and others as swans who came to tell the falling Bheeshma not to leave the pranan as it was dhakshinayana. Why did this confusion occur? Were the rishis who intially said that he may die wrong? How can such a confusion occur? The only plausible reason is that Bheeshma who was willing to listen to the voice of the divine at the last moments, did not listen to the voice of dharma at a crucial juncture. That is why what he heard at the end confused him (he lost the power to decipher correctly keeping other factors such as the season in mind) and laid him on a bed of arrows. During every moment on that bed he was recollecting how for the one on the side of adharma, dharma can not be seen. The atonement got itself manifested in his kind words to karna. What he failed to do, he requested Karna to do.A search like this on the question of dharma is what Rama has perhaps expected us to do. It is perhaps to drive home hard lessons in an effective way, He made Vali vadam a controversial (only seemingly) one!!