Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > > pranams, > We know demons do see the lord.If we say it is illusion ,then all lilas with repsect to lord killing becomes an Illusion again(we may say there is no killing in goloka,still BG says Krsna destroys demons). > > I jus got an example to what i had asked... ravan kidnapped"MAYA" sita,since demon can not have access to divine things. > So can we simply say that lord also appears to exhibit such a type of "MAYA" form for demons to access? > However the example of hiranyakashipu and nrsingha seems not to explain this concept of "MAYA" form as an aspect of avatar since the killing is what the main theme of this avatar. We don't need to rely on increasingly tenuous conjecture to support a theory we find personally appealing. Obviously, the Lord can be seen by nondevotees when He takes avataara - this is the special mercy of the Lord as an avataara. Nevertheless, depending on qualification, different people will see Him differently, as in the Arena of Kamsa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/43/17/en): mallaanaam ashanir nR^iNaa.m naravaraH striiNaa.m smaro muurtimaan gopaanaa.m svajano 'sataa.m kShitibhujaa.m shaastaa svapitroH shishuH | mR^ityur bhojapater viraaD aviduShaa.m tattva.m para.m yoginaa.m vR^iShNînâ.m paradevateti vidito ran^ga.m gataH saagrajaH || The various groups of people in the arena regarded Krrishna in different ways when He entered it with His elder brother. The wrestlers saw Krishna as a lightning bolt, the men of Mathuraa as the best of males, the women as Cupid in person, the cowherd men as their relative, the impious rulers as a chastiser, His parents as their child, the King of the Bhojas as death, the unintelligent as the Supreme Lord's universal form, the yogiis as the Absolute Truth and the Vrishnis as their supreme worshipable Deity. (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.43.17) Thus, let us please have done with theories like "Lord's form as seen by demons is maya." What exactly does that mean? Where is the pramaana for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 thanx for the reply. yes, it is lord's mercy that a demon can see the lord.But demon doesnt see the lord as GOD but only as enemy. Thus what i try to mean is that LORD assumes MATERIAL form too to be accessed by demons. Please correct with explanations if you dont agree this. Pramana is : MAYA sita was the one kidnapped by ravana . Thanx krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > > pranams, > We know demons do see the lord.If we say it is illusion ,then all lilas with repsect to lord killing becomes an Illusion again(we may say there is no killing in goloka,still BG says Krsna destroys demons). > > I jus got an example to what i had asked... ravan kidnapped"MAYA" sita,since demon can not have access to divine things. > So can we simply say that lord also appears to exhibit such a type of "MAYA" form for demons to access? > However the example of hiranyakashipu and nrsingha seems not to explain this concept of "MAYA" form as an aspect of avatar since the killing is what the main theme of this avatar. We don't need to rely on increasingly tenuous conjecture to support a theory we find personally appealing. Obviously, the Lord can be seen by nondevotees when He takes avataara - this is the special mercy of the Lord as an avataara. Nevertheless, depending on qualification, different people will see Him differently, as in the Arena of Kamsa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/43/17/en): mallaanaam ashanir nR^iNaa.m naravaraH striiNaa.m smaro muurtimaan gopaanaa.m svajano 'sataa.m kShitibhujaa.m shaastaa svapitroH shishuH | mR^ityur bhojapater viraaD aviduShaa.m tattva.m para.m yoginaa.m vR^iShNînâ.m paradevateti vidito ran^ga.m gataH saagrajaH || The various groups of people in the arena regarded Krrishna in different ways when He entered it with His elder brother. The wrestlers saw Krishna as a lightning bolt, the men of Mathuraa as the best of males, the women as Cupid in person, the cowherd men as their relative, the impious rulers as a chastiser, His parents as their child, the King of the Bhojas as death, the unintelligent as the Supreme Lord's universal form, the yogiis as the Absolute Truth and the Vrishnis as their supreme worshipable Deity. (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.43.17) Thus, let us please have done with theories like "Lord's form as seen by demons is maya." What exactly does that mean? Where is the pramaana for that? Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. achintya/ achintya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > thanx for the reply. > yes, it is lord's mercy that a demon can see the lord.But demon doesnt see the lord as GOD but only as enemy. > Thus what i try to mean is that LORD assumes MATERIAL form too to be accessed by demons. > Please correct with explanations if you dont agree this. I don't agree with this because it makes no sense. The demons see Krishna as enemy. Therefore, their *vision* is materialistic, not the Lord's form. > Pramana is : MAYA sita was the one kidnapped by ravana . > > Thanx Not a valid comparison, because maayaa-siitaa is not a material Siitaa, but rather another entity disguised as Siitaa. This point is mentioned in the Skandha Puraana, Venkatesha Mahaatmya. Also, there are other instances of the Lord's internal potency being kidnapped by unqualified demons. In the aaranya-kaaNDa of the Raamaayana, the raakshasa Kabandha seized Siitaa, and there was no "Maya-Siitaa" then. Similarly, in Krishna-liila, a demon named Sankachuuda was able to kidnap the gopiis. The fact that a Maayaa-siitaa was kidnapped by Raavana and not the real Siitaa shows that the Lord can protect His devotees if that is what He wants. It does not prove that the demons cannot see the spiritual forms of the Lord or His pure devotees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 KS:I don't agree with this because it makes no sense. The demons see Krishna as enemy. Therefore, their *vision* is materialistic, not the Lord's form. rajagopal:then whom did the demons fight with ?not the supreme lord?some mock up? if you say lord.. then how did the demon have access to Him? If u say it is the power of vision given by the lord himself to the demon.. then what is the difference between the spiritual eye and this eye?also it is strange for the demons to have site of the lord and not sadhakas..though the end resutls for demon mostly is sayujya which a devotee s. >Not a valid comparison, because maayaa-siitaa is not a >aterial >Siitaa, but rather another entity disguised as Siitaa. This >point is >mentioned in the Skandha Puraana, Venkatesha Mahaatmya. rajagopal:another entity disugised as Sita?you mean then this was a jiva shakti? >Also, there are other instances of the Lord's internal >potency being >kidnapped by unqualified demons. In the aaranya-kaaNDa of the Raamaayana, the raakshasa Kabandha seized Siitaa, and there was no "Maya-Siitaa" then. Similarly, in Krishna-liila, a demon named Sankachuuda was able to kidnap the gopiis. The fact that a Maayaa-siitaa was kidnapped by Raavana and not the real Siitaa shows that the Lord can protect His devotees if that is what He wants. It does not prove that the demons cannot see the spiritual forms of the Lord or His pure devotees. Rajagopal:so demons see spiritual forms?they have the spiritual eyes to see them?Please explain how it is possible to access spiriutal things with degraded senses? My doubt is what did the asuras experience?was it a spiritual one or a material one?if they were dealing with spirtual subjects then they need spiritual senses .. Thanx Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. achintya/ achintya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > rajagopal:then whom did the demons fight with ?not the supreme lord? some mock up? > > if you say lord.. then how did the demon have access to Him? >From where do you get this idea that one cannot see the Lord's avataara with unqualified eyes? Because frankly speaking, there is no problem of philosophy here. The problem is that you have a certain view (demons cannot see Lord's spiritual form), and you are clinging to it when all evidence points to the contrary. And because you cling to it, you are proposing increasingly tenuous hypotheses to reconcile the facts with your theory. > If u say it is the power of vision given by the lord himself to the demon.. then what is the difference between the spiritual eye and this eye?also it is strange for the demons to have site of the lord and not sadhakas..though the end resutls for demon mostly is sayujya which a devotee s. > Both saadhakas as well as demons can see the Lord when He descends as avataara. The Bhaagavatam records that many people had the darshan of the Lord during His public appearances in Mathuraa, Dvaarakaa, Hastinaapur, etc. Do you think every city dweller who saw Him was a pure devotee? It is only as avataara that the Lord can be seen by anyone, though He may not be recognized as such due to the lack of qualification of the person. > rajagopal:another entity disugised as Sita?you mean then this was a jiva shakti? > The Skandha Puraana is not clear, but it does indicate that the Lord, when He descended as Sriinivaasa, took Padmaavathi (daughter of Akaasha Raaja) as His wife because the latter had served Him in a previous Yuga as the "Maayaa-Siitaa." Since contemporary South Indian Vaishnavas regard this Padmaavathii as another Lakshmii-tattva, we can probably assume that she is not a jiiva-tattva as far as we are concerned. > Rajagopal:so demons see spiritual forms?they have the spiritual eyes to see them?Please explain how it is possible to access spiriutal things with degraded senses? > > My doubt is what did the asuras experience?was it a spiritual one or a material one?if they were dealing with spirtual subjects then they need spiritual senses . > That is merely your own assumption. The Lord cannot interact with the world as an avataara only a select few can actually see Him. The demons and devotees both see Him, but only the devotees recognize Him as their Lord, while demons become envious and have to have that envy beaten out of them. There is nothing wrong with the senses per se, "degraded" or otherwise. It is true that the senses are limited in what they can perceive, but the Lord temporarily overcomes this limitation by descending into the phenomenal world as avataar. At such time, anyone can see Him with their existing senses, but when He leaves the world, only those who are sufficiently graced by the Lord will continue to see Him. You can't understand the significance of ENVY if you don't realize that the demons ARE seeing the Lord's spiritual form - and still rejecting Him as their Lord due to that envy. Think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 pranams i get to understand my problem here.. mainly since we give example that if the demons get sayujya how much more should a devotee get(devotee thus gets the best place or vimukti-visesa mukti). I posted all these messages with the assumption that the lord is never touched by modes of nature and thus there is no flaw in him assuming a material form to kill the demons .since we also see that the whole universe is a form of the lord as in purusha sukta and also as from rupa vilas pr's mail "That the Lord left His body means that He left again His plenary portions in the respective dhamas (transcendental abodes), as He left His virat-rupa in the material world" We say virat is material form! anyways demons having access to see spiritual form though remaining envious is also ok. Thanx --- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: > > achintya, RAJGOPAL > <scooty_ram> wrote: > > > rajagopal:then whom did the demons fight with ?not > the supreme lord? > some mock up? > > > > if you say lord.. then how did the demon have > access to Him? > > From where do you get this idea that one cannot see > the Lord's > avataara with unqualified eyes? Because frankly > speaking, there is no > problem of philosophy here. The problem is that you > have a certain > view (demons cannot see Lord's spiritual form), and > you are clinging > to it when all evidence points to the contrary. And > because you cling > to it, you are proposing increasingly tenuous > hypotheses to reconcile > the facts with your theory. > > > If u say it is the power of vision given by the > lord himself to the > demon.. then what is the difference between the > spiritual eye and > this eye?also it is strange for the demons to have > site of the lord > and not sadhakas..though the end resutls for demon > mostly is sayujya > which a devotee s. > > > > Both saadhakas as well as demons can see the Lord > when He descends as > avataara. The Bhaagavatam records that many people > had the darshan of > the Lord during His public appearances in Mathuraa, > Dvaarakaa, > Hastinaapur, etc. Do you think every city dweller > who saw Him was a > pure devotee? > > It is only as avataara that the Lord can be seen by > anyone, though He > may not be recognized as such due to the lack of > qualification of the > person. > > > rajagopal:another entity disugised as Sita?you > mean then this was a > jiva shakti? > > > > The Skandha Puraana is not clear, but it does > indicate that the Lord, > when He descended as Sriinivaasa, took Padmaavathi > (daughter of > Akaasha Raaja) as His wife because the latter had > served Him in a > previous Yuga as the "Maayaa-Siitaa." Since > contemporary South Indian > Vaishnavas regard this Padmaavathii as another > Lakshmii-tattva, we > can probably assume that she is not a jiiva-tattva > as far as we are > concerned. > > > Rajagopal:so demons see spiritual forms?they have > the spiritual > eyes to see them?Please explain how it is possible > to access > spiriutal things with degraded senses? > > > > My doubt is what did the asuras experience?was it > a spiritual one > or a material one?if they were dealing with spirtual > subjects then > they need spiritual senses . > > > > That is merely your own assumption. The Lord cannot > interact with the > world as an avataara only a select few can actually > see Him. The > demons and devotees both see Him, but only the > devotees recognize Him > as their Lord, while demons become envious and have > to have that envy > beaten out of them. > > There is nothing wrong with the senses per se, > "degraded" or > otherwise. It is true that the senses are limited in > what they can > perceive, but the Lord temporarily overcomes this > limitation by > descending into the phenomenal world as avataar. At > such time, anyone > can see Him with their existing senses, but when He > leaves the world, > only those who are sufficiently graced by the Lord > will continue to > see Him. > > You can't understand the significance of ENVY if you > don't realize > that the demons ARE seeing the Lord's spiritual form > - and still > rejecting Him as their Lord due to that envy. Think > about it. > > > > > > Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > I posted all these messages with the assumption that > the lord is never touched by modes of nature and thus > there is no flaw in him assuming a material form to > kill the demons . Because He is never touched by modes of nature, He does not have a "material form." That is to say, He is nondifferent from His form, which is purely spiritual. Even though He is never touched by modes of nature, the demons can see Him when He descends as avataar. This does not change His basic nature the transcendental Lord. since we also see that the whole > universe is a form of the lord as in purusha sukta and > also as from rupa vilas pr's mail > "That the Lord left His body means that He left again > His plenary portions in the respective dhamas > (transcendental abodes), as He left His virat-rupa in > the material world" > We say virat is material form! The Viraat-ruupa is the universe itself, personified as a form of Vishnu. Because the universe is material, the Viraat-purusha is technically a "material" conception, albeit a very elevated one. However, this viraat-purusha is merely a reflection of the Lord's actual form as the purusha-avataara - or at least this is what is implied near the beginning of the Bhaagavatam 1.3 where the Garbhodhaakashaayi Vishnu is described with adjectives that seems more applicable to the Viraat-purusha. Obviously, a form of the Lord can be manufactured from material elements, as the above case shows. Indeed, such "material" forms of the Lord are actually spiritual, if we are to follow the Gaudiiya position on Deity theology. Is there a difference between "material" forms of the Lord which are consequently spiritual, and the Lord's actual spiritual form? I think that is the question that was raised in the other thread. Suffice it to say that the Lord's form is spiritual, can be seen by unqualified persons when He descends to the material world, and He is always transcendental to the three modes of material nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hare Krishna, The arca-vigraha according to Srila Prabhupada in his Gita purport is also an incarnation (or avatar) of the Lord in the form of matter. When conditioned souls (who are demoniac in nature and probably even less qualified in that compared to Ravana or Kamsa:)) like us cannot access the true spiritual form of the Lord in arca-vigraha form, because of lack of pure bhakti, how can we say the demons of the past were able to see the avatars of the Lord in His pure form, the exactly same form which devotees saw. Does the Lord even care to show His original transcendental form (svarupa) to the demons? Is there any proof for your statement that demons saw the exactly same form? if yes, please care to remove my ignorance. in your service, Aravind. Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hare Krsna, Dear Friends I am new member to this group, My name is Sai.I am from West Virginia University. I have some questions regarding the Lord's form seen by demons.I will be glad if someone can clear my ignorance. First there is no question for me that Lord is completely spiritual, either seen by devotees or demons differently because of their inherent nature. 1. But we know that in many cases the demons were actually the devotees of Lord and infact have taken birth because of their curse (The case of Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu and etc)in their past lifes and have become the opponent of Lord, to enable the wonderful pasttime of Lord.Does this necessarily make them Lord view differently than what he is, though they are envious? Or is it just the thinking differs?? 2.Is it not the difference that the devotee and the demon has is the way he thinks regarding the Lord, I mean the devotee loves god, but demon is envious and still this proves that he thinks the Lord is supreme but he is just envious of that fact. 3.Does it mean, that whoever was on the battlefield on Kurukshetra and viewed the wonderful form of Lord before dying actually reached his lotus feet. Please kindly direct me to the truth. Your Servant, Sai Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 My initial response appears to have been lost. I am resending this. achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind> wrote: > Hare Krishna, > > The arca-vigraha according to Srila Prabhupada in his Gita purport is also an incarnation (or avatar) of the Lord in the form of matter. When conditioned souls (who are demoniac in nature and probably even less qualified in that compared to Ravana or Kamsa:)) like us cannot access the true spiritual form of the Lord in arca- vigraha form, because of lack of pure bhakti, how can we say the demons of the past were able to see the avatars of the Lord in His pure form, the exactly same form which devotees saw. > This comparison is not valid, because demons who see the Lord's spiritual form still do not understand Him properly. Thus, whether it is liila-avataara or archa-avataara, the unqualified think they are seeing an ordinary human being conditioned by karma or a stone statue. Thus, there is no difficulty in believing that the demons see the Lord's spiritual form - they just do not comprehend Him as such. > Does the Lord even care to show His original transcendental form (svarupa) to the demons? Is there any proof for your statement that demons saw the exactly same form? if yes, please care to remove my ignorance. > This requires no proof. Rather, it is opposite statement - that Lord adopts a material form just to be visible to non-devotees, which requires proof. Where is your pramaana for such a statement? Why must Lord be forced to take a material body just to be seen by non- devotees? This is an obnoxious conclusion which no Vaishnava will accept. Even the so-called "incarnation into material elements" is a description based on conditioned souls' perceptions. In truth, the appearance of archa-vigraha as "stone statue" is not accepted as the reality by Gaudiiyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 This comparison is not valid, because demons who see the Lord's spiritual form still do not understand Him properly. Thus, whether it is liila-avataara or archa-avataara, the unqualified think they are seeing an ordinary human being conditioned by karma or a stone statue. Thus, there is no difficulty in believing that the demons see the Lord's spiritual form - they just do not comprehend Him as such. >>>I don't understand why you say the comparison is not valid. Do we really understand the Lord when we see the arca-vigraha? Your point that it is only a matter of comprehension runs contrary to our philsophy that matter is not false - only advaitins would say matter is false and all that there is spirit- please clarify your position here. While, Srila Prabhupada emphasizes that the Lord is non-different from His arca-vigraha, it does not mean as Bhanu maharaj, Gerald and Sumeet have tried to explain that acit can change to cit and vice versa. If that is so, Srila Prabhupada would be contradicting himself when he says matter is real, because it is one of Lord's energy. Emphasis of a philosophical point cannot make facts untrue. This requires no proof. Rather, it is opposite statement - that Lord adopts a material form just to be visible to non-devotees, which requires proof. Where is your pramaana for such a statement? >>>You were the one who stated first - why do u demand pramana from me- the onus is on you to show that demons saw exactly the same form as the Lord. If you cannot, then there is no point demanding me. The opposite statement is supported by the fact that for demons like us to see the Lord, the acharyas kindly invoke the Lord to appear as arca-vigraha- other avatars also appear at the request of devotees and there is simply no reason to believe that devotees and demons see the same form. Why must Lord be forced to take a material body just to be seen by non-devotees? This is an obnoxious conclusion which no Vaishnava will accept. >>>I don't understand what is obnoxious here. Matter is after all the Lord's energy. Vaishnavas don't deny matter itself, they only say that the Lord is uncontanimated by it- so, why cannot He appear in the form He chooses- the fact is if a demon, anyone for that matter, sees the Lord's pure transcendental form He cannot remain a demon - He will be fully captivated by the Lord. The fact that Lord Krishna bled before His departure shows that He can adopt a material form - but as He Himself says,those who deride Him because of this are fools- because, material covering cannot contaminate the all-pure Lord. This statement in the Gita is redundant, if the Lord does not ever take up material form. He needs it to be visible to the demons. Even the so-called "incarnation into material elements" is a description based on conditioned souls' perceptions. >>>The description is given by a pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada - it is not based on the souls' perceptions. In truth, the appearance of archa-vigraha as "stone statue" is not accepted as the reality by Gaudiiyas. >>>I agree that they don't see the arca-vigraha as stone, but you cannot deny the reality of matter, neither do Vaishnavas. in your service, Aravind. Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. achintya/ achintya Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 pranams, > This comparison is not valid, because demons who see > the Lord's > spiritual form still do not understand Him properly. > Thus, whether it > is liila-avataara or archa-avataara, the unqualified > think they are > seeing an ordinary human being conditioned by karma > or a stone > statue. Any misperception has reality in every case and thus if demons have not seen any spiritual form(their perception was that He is human being)then what did they see and whatever they have seen is not anything like "Horn of a Hare". thus if you say misconception is false it only means mayavad! > Even the so-called "incarnation into material > elements" is a > description based on conditioned souls' perceptions. > In truth, the > appearance of archa-vigraha as "stone statue" is not > accepted as the > reality by Gaudiiyas. An extract from what i have read from dvaita list..... "I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the substance of the murti itself is the Lord, but that the Lord acts directly through the medium. For the practical purposes of sadhana, the arca (the Lord-jada complex) is the Lord Himself. (i.e. Offenses to the the properly installed murti cut right through the thin veil of matter and are offenses to the Lord Himself.) .." Thus though it may be possible for lord to change spirit to dead matter.. it is a question if he will do it. He wont.. jus like He will never let devotees down though He has the potential. Thanx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 An extract from what i have read from dvaita list..... "I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the substance of the murti itself is the Lord, but that the Lord acts directly through the medium. For the practical purposes of sadhana, the arca (the Lord-jada complex) is the Lord Himself. (i.e. Offenses to the the properly installed murti cut right through the thin veil of matter and are offenses to the Lord Himself.) .." Just for clarification: that was my statement on the dvaita list, not that of a dvaitin. Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind> wrote: > >>>I don't understand why you say the comparison is not valid. Do we really understand the Lord when we see the arca-vigraha? Your point that it is only a matter of comprehension runs contrary to our philsophy that matter is not false - only advaitins would say matter is false and all that there is spirit- please clarify your position here. > Actually, you are mistaken. I have said no such thing, nor is such a position derived from anything I said. What I said is that the perception of the archa-vigraha as matter is false, as per Gaudiiya Vaishnava conclusions. Matter is real, but the archa-vigraha is not matter. The point is that just as demons do not appreciate the transcendent Lord when viewing His archa-vigraha, similarly they do not appreciate Him when they see His liila-avataara. So, there is no contradiction. > While, Srila Prabhupada emphasizes that the Lord is non-different from His arca-vigraha, it does not mean as Bhanu maharaj, Gerald and Sumeet have tried to explain that acit can change to cit and vice versa. If that is so, Srila Prabhupada would be contradicting himself when he says matter is real, because it is one of Lord's energy. Emphasis of a philosophical point cannot make facts untrue. > The explanation of transforming spirit into matter and vice-versa was not mine. My point all along was that the archa-vigraha is not matter. Another point I made was that the Lord can leave behind material representations of Himself to delude atheists - such as for example when He was "killed" by Jaraa the hunter, or when His Deity form is attacked by Muslim invaders due to being inadequately protected by the devotees. > This requires no proof. Rather, it is opposite statement - that Lord > adopts a material form just to be visible to non-devotees, which requires proof. Where is your pramaana for such a statement? > > >>>You were the one who stated first - why do u demand pramana from me- the onus is on you to show that demons saw exactly the same form as the Lord. If you cannot, then there is no point demanding me. > Let us be clear. The position that the demons see a "material form" of the Lord is not the Gaudiiya position. If you feel otherwise, then please quote the Gaudiiya Vaishnava who holds this position. Thus, as you are the one proposing this theory, the onus is on you to provide shaastric pramaana. I am not going to be held to a higher standard of proof, to prove wrong every bit of conjecture which is not itself based on an equal standard of proof. This is ridiculous. It's like a ritvik proposing post-samaadhi ritvik guru initiations without quoting shaastra, and then asking the conservatives to justify their position to the contrary by quoting shaastra. Absolutely unacceptable. It is the challengers who must first provide proof. Now, to rationalize your theory, you provide the following "logic," in which is embedded the conclusion you were trying to prove: > The opposite statement is supported by the fact that for demons like us to see the Lord, the acharyas kindly invoke the Lord to appear as arca-vigraha- other avatars also appear at the request of devotees and there is simply no reason to believe that devotees and demons see the same form. > Unfortunately, the above rationalization makes no sense in supporting your theory. Yes, when the Lord is not personally present, His presence can be invited as the archa-vigraha. That is a fact. But when He is personally present as a liila-avataara, it is a part of His special mercy that all can see Him. The mere fact that we can only see Him as an apparently material form in the temple does not prove that His every appearance involves a material form. In fact, the basic premise that the archa-vigraha is material is itself not accepted by Gaudiiyas, so your rationalization fails. > >>>I don't understand what is obnoxious here. Matter is after all the Lord's energy. Vaishnavas don't deny matter itself, they only say that the Lord is uncontanimated by it- so, why cannot He appear in the form He chooses > The answer is that He can do whatever He wants, but He does not appear in a material form. This is simply a basic conclusion and I am surprised to see you proposing it. Our aachaaryas have been over this again and again - the Lord's form is spiritual, He does not appear in a material form. No Vaishnava accepts that the Lord appears in material form. Your logic is strikingly Advaitic - the Lord is transcendental, but nevertheless He can appear in a material form. Sorry, but it is not acceptable to any Vaishnavas, what to speak of Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. Where is the shaastric pramaana saying that Lord appears in material form? That's precisely my point. > - the fact is if a demon, anyone for that matter, sees the Lord's pure transcendental form He cannot remain a demon - He will be fully captivated by the Lord. > That is not a fact. It is merely your opinion. As I have stated before, you and Rajgopal are merely creating theories based on assumptions which you are attached to, but which are not obvious. This discussion cannot proceed if you are not prepared to examine your underlying assumptions. If you simply assume your assumptions are fact, then you cannot help but come up with incompatible conclusions. > The fact that Lord Krishna bled before His departure shows that He can adopt a material form> Nooooo. What this shows is that He can display signs of material injury for the purpose of pasttime. On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, He would similarly display "wounds" that were supposedly inflicted by Bhiishma, but this did not mean His form was material. The Lord does not need to reside in a material form. He can leave behind a material representation of Himself if He chooses, but being transcendental to the modes implicitly includues not being in a material body. Again, this is Vaishnava theology 101. Please note also that only Advaitins contest this view. > - but as He Himself says,those who deride Him because of this are fools- > Nooooooooooooooo, that is not what He says. He nowhere says in the Giitaa that "because of this, i.e. having material form" those who deride Him as human are fools. Here is the exact statement: avajaananti maa.m muuDhaa maanuShii.m tanum aashritam | para.m bhaavam ajaananto mama bhuutamaheshvaram || giitaa 9.11 || As you can see, there is nothing here to the effect of, "Fools deride me as human because I appear in material form." What is said here is that fools deride Him because He appears in human form - i.e. they think He is merely human and not the Supreme Lord. There is absolutely NOTHING here to suggest that the Lord's form is material, and that this is the basis of the fools' derision. You are misquoting the Giitaa to support a tenuous hypothesis entirely of your own making. > because, material covering cannot contaminate the all-pure Lord. This statement in the Gita is redundant, if the Lord does not ever take up material form. He needs it to be visible to the demons. > So He must have material form, in order for the statement that He is not contaminated by matter to be meaningful? This is absurd. What Vaishnava aachaaryas support such a conclusion? The Lord is described as transcendental because people may mistakenly think that because He appears in this world, He is doing so based on His karma, just as ordinary jiivas are born into this world into material bodies based on their past karmas. The statements regarding His transcendence are meant to correct this misconception - the Lord is not born into a material body based on previous karmas - rather, since He has no karmas, He appears in His original spiritual form. There is no reason to believe He must have a material body in order to be described as transcendental to matter. Aravind, this is bad logic. Can you not appreciate how increasingly fragile your arguments are becoming, just to maintain a theory you happen to like? > Even the so-called "incarnation into material elements" is a > description based on conditioned souls' perceptions. > > >>>The description is given by a pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada - it is not based on the souls' perceptions. > So on one hand, Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, and yet on the other hand you propose a theory regarding Lord having material form which he has always objected to? You need to make up your mind and then clarify who it is whose teachings you are representing. The point I am trying to make is that Srila Prabhupada, in saying that the Lord's archa-vigraha is an incarnation as material elements, is adopting a conventional description based on lay perceptions. It does not reflect the actual fact. Similarly, Prabhupada uses the word "incarnation" as synonymous with avataara even though to incarnate means to take a body of flesh, which the Lord does not do. > In truth, the appearance of archa-vigraha as "stone statue" is not accepted as the reality by Gaudiiyas. > > >>>I agree that they don't see the arca-vigraha as stone, but you cannot deny the reality of matter, neither do Vaishnavas. > I never denied the reality of matter, Aravind. I simply denied that the Archa-vigraha is matter. On the other hand, you cannot deny that your theory of Lord having material form is rejected by all Vaishnavas. Quote one Vaishnava aachaarya to support your view that the Lord has a material form just to be seen by demons, and I will conceed this point. If you cannot, then you should admit that this is entirely your own theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > pranams, > > > This comparison is not valid, because demons who see > > the Lord's > > spiritual form still do not understand Him properly. > > Thus, whether it > > is liila-avataara or archa-avataara, the unqualified > > think they are > > seeing an ordinary human being conditioned by karma > > or a stone > > statue. > Any misperception has reality in every case So, if I perceive that the moon is a flat disc in the sky, this has reality? Rajgopal, as I have said before, you and Aravind are being forced to offer increasingly illogical arguments to bolster a theory you happen to like, but which as not basis in guru, saadhu, and shaastra. Aravind already misquoted Bhagavad-giitaa once. When is this going to end? Can you not both just admit that your assumptions are unfounded? and thus > if demons have not seen any spiritual form(their > perception was that He is human being)then what did > they see You are confusing the object of the senses with the intellectual understanding of what that object is. When demons see Lord Krishna's spiritual form, they are in fact seeing His original spiritual form. But they do not understand it as such. There is nothing here that needs clarification. The Lord has one, spiritual form. He does not have material form. That is implicit in His nondual nature. He does not display a material form just to be seen by demons. and whatever they have seen is not anything > like "Horn of a Hare". I have no idea what you are saying here. It would help my understanding of your writing if you used proper punctuation and avoided run-on sentences. > thus if you say misconception is false it only means > mayavad! You have no idea what you are talking about. You are confusing sensory input with understanding. Taking into account the distinction between the two, you are argument is something like this: Demons understand Lord's form to be material --> therefore demons saw a material form of the Lord --> therefore Lord has a material form The error comes between points 1 and 2. Because demons misunderstand Lord's form to be material, it does not follow that the demons saw a material form. There misunderstanding or misperception is based not on illusory sensory input but on flawed processing of that sensory input due to be conditioned by maayaa. > An extract from what i have read from dvaita list..... > "I don't think Sri Vaishnavas, or Gaudiyas think the > substance of the murti itself is the Lord, but that > the Lord acts directly through the medium. For > the practical purposes of sadhana, the arca (the > Lord-jada complex) is the > Lord Himself. (i.e. Offenses to the the properly > installed murti cut right > through the thin veil of matter and are offenses to > the Lord Himself.) .." > Thus though it may be possible for lord to change > spirit to dead matter.. it is a question if he will do > it. He wont.. jus like He will never let devotees down > though He has the potential. Several points: 1) The above quote is by Gerald Surya, and not by a Dvaitin 2) Even if it were by a Dvaitin, I fail to see what that proves. It seems that suddenly Srila Prabhupada's opinions are not acceptable, but Dvaita list pramaana is. 3) I have not proposed that Lord is changing matter into spirit or vice-versa. I have stated that the Lord's archa-vigraha is spiritual, and that the perception of Him as matter is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: The point is that just as demons do not appreciate the transcendent Lord when viewing His archa-vigraha, similarly they do not appreciate Him when they see His liila-avataara. So, there is no contradiction. >>>They do not appreciate Him because He does not show them His svarupa. I'll send a separate email from Gaudiya literature to prove this. The explanation of transforming spirit into matter and vice-versa was not mine. My point all along was that the archa-vigraha is not matter. >>>Your second statement implies that you consider the first statement to be true. The arca-vigraha is clearly made of material objects such as stone,wood etc., - if you say it is pure spirit and there is no tinge of matter, it means you accept that matter completely transforms into spirit. Let us be clear. The position that the demons see a "material form" of the Lord is not the Gaudiiya position. If you feel otherwise, then please quote the Gaudiiya Vaishnava who holds this position. Thus, as you are the one proposing this theory, the onus is on you to provide shaastric pramaana. >>>The position that the demons see the same form as devotees is also not Gaudiya position (see my next post). So,since you made that statement in reply to Rajagopal, the onus is on you to prove it first by logic or sastric evidence. I am not going to be held to a higher standard of proof, to prove wrong every bit of conjecture which is not itself based on an equal standard of proof. This is ridiculous. It's like a ritvik proposing post-samaadhi ritvik guru initiations without quoting shaastra, and then asking the conservatives to justify their position to the contrary by quoting shaastra. Absolutely unacceptable. It is the challengers who must first provide proof. >>>Ok, you tend to do these sometimes - trying to raise the emotions of readers by giving unrelated examples - you were the first challenger -don't forget that- I think, by dint of your wonderful service in supporting gaudiya philosophy, you are conditioned to see everyone else as challenger and you alone as the sole protector of the Gaudiya philosophy - while I'm ignorant of many aspects of the philosophy, I'm open-minded. Now, to rationalize your theory, you provide the following "logic," in which is embedded the conclusion you were trying to prove: Unfortunately, the above rationalization makes no sense in supporting your theory. Yes, when the Lord is not personally present, His presence can be invited as the archa-vigraha. That is a fact. But when He is personally present as a liila-avataara, it is a part of His special mercy that all can see Him. The mere fact that we can only see Him as an apparently material form in the temple does not prove that His every appearance involves a material form. In fact, the basic premise that the archa-vigraha is material is itself not accepted by Gaudiiyas, so your rationalization fails. >>>Yes, He gives His mercy to everyone to see His form. But,the point here is whether He shows the same form or not - that is the difference between your position and mine. The answer is that He can do whatever He wants, but He does not appear in a material form. This is simply a basic conclusion and I am surprised to see you proposing it. Our aachaaryas have been over this again and again - the Lord's form is spiritual, He does not appear in a material form. No Vaishnava accepts that the Lord appears in material form. Your logic is strikingly Advaitic - the Lord is transcendental, but nevertheless He can appear in a material form. Sorry, but it is not acceptable to any Vaishnavas, what to speak of Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. >>>Please see next post. That is not a fact. It is merely your opinion. As I have stated before, you and Rajgopal are merely creating theories based on assumptions which you are attached to, but which are not obvious. This discussion cannot proceed if you are not prepared to examine your underlying assumptions. If you simply assume your assumptions are fact, then you cannot help but come up with incompatible conclusions. >>>There you go again. What is wrong in proposing a theory, as long we support it by logic and as long as one is ready to accept defeat and not afraid to learn. Why do you scare away people from discussions. I'm completely aware that my theory could be totally false. One of the reasons we post on this forum is to learn from senior devotees such as yourself. A devotee should be happy to be defeated by a senior. This is the secret of advancement in Krishna consciousness. Nooooo. What this shows is that He can display signs of material injury for the purpose of pasttime. On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, He would similarly display "wounds" that were supposedly inflicted by Bhiishma, but this did not mean His form was material. >>>Ok, what I meant was what you have stated above. To bewilder materialists or demons, He invokes His illusory power. His form is purely trasncendental. But, for the demons, He does accept a different dress,just like an actor does in a drama. That is the central point of our discussion. Nooooooooooooooo, that is not what He says. He nowhere says in the Giitaa that "because of this, i.e. having material form" those who deride Him as human are fools. Here is the exact statement: avajaananti maa.m muuDhaa maanuShii.m tanum aashritam | para.m bhaavam ajaananto mama bhuutamaheshvaram || giitaa 9.11 || As you can see, there is nothing here to the effect of, "Fools deride me as human because I appear in material form." What is said here is that fools deride Him because He appears in human form - i.e. they think He is merely human and not the Supreme Lord. >>>Ok, I sincerely apologise for misquoting the Gita in haste. So He must have material form, in order for the statement that He is not contaminated by matter to be meaningful? This is absurd. What Vaishnava aachaaryas support such a conclusion? >>>I think I was not clear in the last few statements of my email. Let me restate and clarify my position: The Lord does not manifest the same form to devotees and demons. You disagree on this. And, secondly, the Lord takes up a form that He desires to appear to the demons - since demons cannot see the original transcendental form, the Lord by using His yoga-maya (note:not maha-maya) potency appears in a form that the demons can comprehend, which in my understanding should be material, because the senses of the demons cannot perceive anything different from matter. If you disagree with this, you should tell me how the demons can perceive the Lord, if His apparent form is not a material covering. This is the covering He gives up when He departs the world. Aravind, this is bad logic. Can you not appreciate how increasingly fragile your arguments are becoming, just to maintain a theory you happen to like? >>>Thanks, I do like my theories, just as you do yours. But, I'm ready to give up if I'm shown to be incorrect. So on one hand, Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, and yet on the other hand you propose a theory regarding Lord having material form which he has always objected to? >>>The Lord takes up a material covering. His original form is not material- I do hold that to be true. You need to make up your mind and then clarify who it is whose teachings you are representing. >>>I don't claim to represent anyone. I'm in the process of learning and willing to use my limited speculative powers (in a favorable mood) and accept defeat if convinced. The point I am trying to make is that Srila Prabhupada, in saying that the Lord's archa-vigraha is an incarnation as material elements, is adopting a conventional description based on lay perceptions. It does not reflect the actual fact. Similarly, Prabhupada uses the word "incarnation" as synonymous with avataara even though to incarnate means to take a body of flesh, which the Lord does not do. >>>what the Lord does not do are the following: He doesn't take birth like us, He doesn't suffer karma, He doesn't come under maya -but these do not prove that the Lord cannot by His sweet will not assume a material covering to bewilder the demons. in your service, Aravind. Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 I forgot that I wanted to respond to this one point by Aravind: > > The fact that Lord Krishna bled before His departure shows that He > can adopt a material form> Please see Shriimad Bhaagavatam 1.9.38 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/9/38/en). This verse contains a description by Bhiishma, one of the twelve mahaajanas, of Lord Krishna bearing wounds inflicted on Him by Bhiishma himself. There can be no doubt about Bhiishma's credentials as a pure devotee, and thus it can only be that he saw the Lord's actual, spiritual form, despite noting His "wounds." Srila Prabhupada explains how the Lord manifested these "wounds" out of a sort of transcendental rasa shared with Bhiishma, and how these "wounds" actually served the purpose of deluding atheists. Since Bhiishma saw the Lord's spiritual form, wounds and all, one cannot argue that this "wounded form" of the Lord was merely a material body manifested for the sake of the demons. One can speculate that perhaps the Lord has another "material wounded form" for the demons, but there is no evidence for it here. Srila Prabhupada writes that this same, implicitly spiritual form bearing wounds and seen by Bhiishma also deluded the atheists. He says nothing about a different, material form bearing the same wounds. How's that for being the Supreme Lord? He is all-spiritual, yet still He deludes the atheists - no material form required. That is the Lord I worship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 KS pr. thanks for continuing to participate. The discussion cannot proceed without you for the sole reason that you are the only one against our (myself and Rajagopal) hypothesis:) See below: krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: Since Bhiishma saw the Lord's spiritual form, wounds and all, one cannot argue that this "wounded form" of the Lord was merely a material body manifested for the sake of the demons. One can speculate that perhaps the Lord has another "material wounded form" for the demons, but there is no evidence for it here. Srila Prabhupada writes that this same, implicitly spiritual form bearing wounds and seen by Bhiishma also deluded the atheists. He says nothing about a different, material form bearing the same wounds. >>>These are the exact lines in the purport, "Bhismadeva played the part of a valiant warrior, and he purposely pierced the body of the Lord so that to the common eyes it appeared that the Lord was wounded, but factually all this was to bewilder the nondevotees." Note the phrase "common eyes" - this means mundane eyes,the eyes through which the demons see. Srila Prabhupada also says "it appeared...but factually", which means that the Lord's form shown to the demons was an illusory form - let's recall the meaning of the word maya - "that which is not" - so, by His yoga maya potency the Lord covered His pure transcendental form While Bhishmadev by dint of his pure devotion was able to recognize this illusory form as the play of the Lord Krishna and perceive His true form, the atehists were "deluded" because they couldn't see the Lord's True transcendental form. Srila Prabhupada DOES NOT write, "same, implicitly spiritual form bearing wounds and seen by Bhiishma also deluded the atheists." it is KS's product to suit his theories. In the purport I posted earlier, Srila Prabhupada is crystal clear that demons don't see the actual form of the Lord. The only way to reconcile the two purports is the way I have done above based on the sastric evidence (I again request, please go through the pdf I uploaded carefully) I'll write more in the next email. As I noted in my email to Pandu Pr.s email I myself am not sure what form the Lord shows to the demons. But, at this point, careful reading of the purports has left me with the impression He shows a form different from what the devotees perceive. in your service, Aravind. Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. achintya/ achintya Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.