Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 Respected Sanjayji, Pranaam. I am overwhelmed by the compationate and nice words from you. Your words are so meaningfull and reminds me the explanations of Mandyukyoponishad by Swami Chinmayanandaji. Yes, I understand what Narsimhaji has tried to explain in his mail. And over years I have also ascimilated the concept that it is first work without self (with forms) and then it is work with pure self (without forms) throughout our spiritual journey. With humble regards, dasgupta - Sanjay Rath vedic astrology Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:28 PM RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Ishta Devata Misconceptions Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaya Dear JK, To sum up, try defining Jagannath Krishna - I mean the specific Vesha or form of the formless lord, the specific 'Madhura' guna of the Gunaless lord and you will get what Narasimha was attempting to describe. Jagannatha has no hands, yet He is the real doer, responsible for all Karma, Jagannath has no eyes, yet He alone can see and we are but blind men being led, Jagannath has no feet, yet He is onmipresent, sarva vyapakesha Vishnu, Jagannath has no ears, yet He is omniscient, the param brahma, Jagannath has no body, yet His is the only unborn and undying body, the omnipotent Sadashiva, Each of Sankara, Buddha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Guru Nanak etc are right; it all depends on where we stand at a point of time. Like the blind men trying to describe the elephant, we are sure of what we say, simultaneously knowing that we can never be sure. So, JK your search for the Guru is never going to end till you realise that so long as it is YOU who is searching, you will not find him; when HE searches, you will go running to Him...I pray that that day comes sooner than later for one as nice as you. Om Krishna Guru With best wishes Sanjay Rath http://sanjayrath.tripod.com j.k. dasgupta [dga (AT) bom5 (DOT) vsnl.net.in]Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 12:38 PMvedic astrologySubject: Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Ishta Devata Misconceptions Once some learned person argued with Bamakhsepa, a famous tantric saint in Tarapeeth (west bengal) about nirguna and saguna form of the God. He argued that saguna worship is wrong and only nirguna worshiping should be done. The saint asked him to get some fire for smoking. The learned person went outside, lit an wooden piece and braught back to the saint. The saint instantly rebuked him `I have asked you to bring fire only-why you have braught the wooden piece also?'. The learned man replied, `How else can I carry the fire to you?'. The saint replied, `Then tell me how can I bring God to you without the medium of a form?' God is all pervading and an ocean of power only. Saguna worshipping leads to that understanding. Else it is impossible for a common man to even understand the concept of nirguna. It is like trying to see ourselves with a binocular..a mirror is required in between to reflect the image. jk dasgupta - ved_ram vedic astrology Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:07 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Ishta Devata Misconceptions aum namo bhagavate vasudevayadear narsimha,a small clarification you said "the worship of nirguna parabrahman is supreme" can you quote in which scriputre it is written.even jagadguru adisankaracharya ( the shaktyavesh avtar of lord shiva) who preached advaita,says in his famous momudhgaram(otherwise called as bhajagovindam) that "one has to finally chant the name of govinda, irrespective of the knowledge gained, to attain moksha" and he also says "govinda is the only alternative".with regardsram In vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:> Namaste friends,> > I will address the few misconceptions I have seen on the list today > regarding ishta devata:> > (1) "Ishta devata worship immediately brings moksha."> > No, ishta devata worship is a catalyst that accelerates the process > of moksha. It does not guarantee instant moksha. Even if one worships > the ishta devata everyday, it may still take many lives to get > moksha. It all depends on the evolution of that particular soul.> > Worship of ishta devata helps one in learning the lessons fast and in > overcoming desires. It is only a catalyst. One's mind still has to > learn the lessons and travel the whole path.> > (2) "One who does not worship ishta devata cannot get moksha."> > No, ishta devata worship is only a catalyst that accelerates the > process of moksha. It helps one in learning the lessons of life fast. > Even without this catalyst, one can still learn the lessons of life > fast.> > (3) "Monotheism and Hinduism are at loggerheads."> > Monotheism is not a new concept for Hinduism. Hindu Sages taught that > God is nirguna (nirguna parabrahman). Nirguna means formless. God is > all pervading as aakasa tattva (ether) and he has no form. The great > Jupiter among planets represents aakasa tattva and hence the nirguna > (formless) expression of God.> > Worship of Nirguna Parabrahman is considered the most supreme form of > worship in Hinduism, but it is considered to be apt only for highly > advanced souls. If you recognize the formless nature of The Supreme > Soul and yet ask very mundane desires when praying to Him, what good > is it?> > Though the Supreme Soul is formless, it CAN manifest in many forms. > You can worship those specific forms too. Hinduism has an elaborate > description of these forms. This does not mean that the ONENESS and > the formlessness of God are questioned.> > (4) "Monotheistic religions cannot have ishta devata worship"> > This is wrong too. Hindus worship deities, sages and saints, though > they recognize the oneness and the formlessness of God. So can people > of other religions do. It is a misconception to think that > worshipping the individual forms in which God manifested Himself is > somehow wrong. Isn't Christ a saguna (having a form) manifestation of > God? Isn't Mother Mary a manifestation of divinity? Aren't the great > saints of christianity who brought the divine teachings to masses a > manifestation of divinity? What is wrong in praying to them?> > Similarly, Sikhs have some great gurus who are the manifestations of > God for the followers of Sikhism. There is nothing wrong in praying > to them.> > I am not knowledgable about Islam, but Allah is perhaps the > equivalent of the Nirguna Parabrahman of Hinduism. But there are so > many great saints and fakirs in Islam, who must've been born with > some divinity in them.> > Whenever God sends somebody to establish an order of spirituality, He > manifests Himself in various forms filled with the energies of > various planets, to show the way to people of various inclinations. > Irrespective of which religion you are talking about, there will be > different deities, saints, angels etc (basically formful expressions > of the formless divinity) that correspond to the nine planets. The > real God aakasa tattva (formless ether). The planets have bodies and > they represent His formful expressions.> > We have to map planets to these divine forms. For Hindus, this task > has already been done. As for other religions, it is upto learned > Vedic astrologers following these religions to carefully study the > teachings of their religion and classify. If learned scholars of > Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism attempt > this task for their own religions, I will be delighted!> > In case the main point is lost, I will stress it again. The concept > of finding an ideal deity or saint or angel whose divine energies > will help one in getting rid of desires does not amount to > polytheism. You can seek the blessings of a particular prophet or > saint and yet believe in the oneness of Allah. I hope I am clear.> > (5) "Worship of other deities is a waste of time"> > Moksha is only one of the 4 purposes in life. One has to follow > dharma, artha and kama. If any unfinished karma is left related to > those purusharthas, one can NOT get moksha.> > Worship of various deities (or forms of God) gets blessings in > various areas of life. If you sincerely pray to any deity, the prayer > will never do you any harm. But the worship of ishta devata will take > you a long way in finishing the unfinished karma, getting a true > perspective of the lessons of life and in overcoming desires of all > kinds.> > (6) "Moksha comes from leading a good and truthful life"> > Well, that is dharma (dutifullness and righteousness). Dharma too is > needed in life, but moksha is different. Moksha is lack of desires. > Lack of desires comes only when one understands the true nature of > self (soul) and the the oneness of divinity to which one's soul > belongs. How else can all desires disappear?> > Ishta devata's worship, leading a truthful life all help in that long > process, but neither is sufficient. Moksha is not an easy thing to > get.> > LAST REMARK:> > Finally, we don't need religious intolerance on this list. No > religion teaches hatred, intolerance and unkindness as the virtues of > a religious person. Though there are many religions in this world of > Kali Yuga, they all have very similar strands of thought behind them. > A casual observer may see disharmony, but a careful critic will see > really similar strands of harmonious thought behind all religions. > After all, there is only one God and each religion was started by > somebody HE sent.> > Let us be kind, compassionate, understanding and respectful to each > other.> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,> NarasimhaArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 > - > Sanjay Rath > Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:28 PM > Jagannatha has no hands, yet He is the real doer, > responsible for all Karma, > Jagannath has no eyes, yet He alone can see and we > are but blind men being led, > Jagannath has no feet, yet He is onmipresent, > sarva vyapakesha Vishnu, > Jagannath has no ears, yet He is omniscient, the > param brahma, > Jagannath has no body, yet His is the only unborn > and undying body, the omnipotent Sadashiva, Dear Sanjay-ji, I am not sure what's the basis for such a thought (regarding not having ears, body, eyes etc), the Purusha sukta starts with defining the ParamaPurushha as having infinite heads, infinite eyes etc. You might say that actual presence of such indriyAs is not being indicated, instead only an omniscient being etc is involved. For That very Purusha has a form is indicated, rather vindicated by a rather large no. of shrutis -- AdityavarNaM tamasaH parastAt, or yaH pashyate rukmavarNaM, etc. Even further, the mudgalopanishad which explains the purusha sukta: brahmaNastvendriyANi yAjakAni dhyAtvA makes it clear that it is very much the indriyas of the Lord, aprAkRta non-materialistic, that are being talked about and not a figurative explanation. Even the description by Arjuna of Vishvarupa is indicative of presence of actual organs. > Each of Sankara, Buddha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, > Guru Nanak etc are right; it all depends on where we > stand at a point of time. Like the blind men trying > to describe the elephant, we are sure of what we > say, simultaneously knowing that we can never be > sure. Don't you agree that -- The fact that oneself is not yet realized contradicts the eclectic idea that all teachers are right, which presumes that one sees more than the blind men? Thus, 'all are right' seems to be a result of respect for all of them, rather than that of a rigorous analysis of their positions? Don't you think that even the very example of blind men's attempt to describe the elephant is bit incongrous. It would have been OK if they never contradicted themselves. Like, one of the blindmen talking about the front leg and other describing the rear ones. But if one of them says that the elephant has a huge form, while the other denies it (basically talking of a boolean variable), it seems obvious to me that one of them is wrong. You know, Shankara has criticized Buddha (see the commentary on avirodhAdhyAya of Brahmasutras), all the various schools of Buddhism criticize the concept of eternal Atman (for that matter, any substance at all) a key concept of Shankara's thesis .... Also, every blindman does not claim some heightened sublime experience as corroborative of their positions. They call observation or scriptures to provide the support, which makes it easy for us to evaluate them, though we might not come up with the ***complete*** form of that Being, whom the upanishad says as 'aprApya manasA saha' and 'shrotavyaM mantavyaM' at the same time. If of any interest, please refer to Shankara's commentary on the sutras, avirodhAdhyAya, on the Jain position of saptabhangInaya, which comes closest to "all are right; it all depends on where we stand at a point of time". Regards, Nomadeva News - Today's headlines http://news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Dear Sanjay-ji, Namaste. Thanks for your reply. You have explained your position in clear and honest terms and, thus, though the following mail seems outside the scope of this list, i am putting this because perhaps you might be interested. I agree that what is right or wrong depends "on the internal nature of the perceiver". Only such a position can tell why there is evil in this world without either blaming the Lord for all evil (which would obtain if one holds Mind does the evil. who gives such a mind to the soul, but the Lord himself) and without contaminating Lord's unparalleled justness. 1. Regarding the Purusha sukta, it is ofcourse the description of Vishvarupa. The point was that the Lord is not formless as contended. There cannot be a 'Vesha' (Guise) without a 'rUpa' or 'AkAra'(form). Pls note that I am not saying that only Vishwarupa is permanent or truest; instead that, He is not formless, whatever be the Vesha. (I have read in one purANa that all his forms are permanent, even those of Rama and Krishna, though they disappear from human sight). The point of view mentioned at the end of mail: "that the various hands are but our hands and the various heads are but our heads" is that of Ranga Ramanuja, a Vishisthadvaitic commentator on the Purushasukta. In anticipation of that, the references of Gita and maudgalyopanishad were given, which in uncertain terms, depict the various organs of Vishnu. Understanding that, esp from Gita, only Vishvarupa or the chaturbhuja rUpa to be permanent, is obviously incomplete. The Lord himself gives N rUpas of his vaibhava. 2. Regarding rigorous anlaysis needed to find out if all are right or not, (guNas are playing their part), an understanding of the original, intent etc are definitely needed, but that does not need the actual presence of the person here. Take the instances of Brahman with forms or being formless. I agree that those who don't dig too much into it will respond like the respectable Kabir-ji. But if we dig a bit deeper, things are not undecipherable or it is not that one cannot decide what is right or wrong. The illustration of whether the no. of Charakarakas is 7 or 8 is apt here, I think. A person who doesn't understand much might consider both to be right, but a person who has learnt the source texts, even a bit, will respectfully, but firmly disagree with the 'other party'. Pls note that this disagreement is not stopped by any consideration of actual presence or lack thereof of Parashara or Jaimini. 3. Sir, if you read the various works of the teachers you mention -- Buddha, Shankara, Madhva, Chaitanya, the various doctrines are not due to the older teaching not offering solutions to some problems. It is not that the Chaitanya did not criticize others before him (that's the info one gets from Chaitanya Charitamrta); though his tradition accepts each of the Acharya as being at different level and recognizes a purpose for their presence on Earth. But that too, it can be seen presumes the divining of the 'purpose' behind the Supreme's creation etc. Anyways, I didn't understand this about: "I was unable to underdstand as to how Parasara could have made a mistake in worshipping Shiva! There was no mistake, Rama, Krishna & Chaitanya did so..thats how the mind reasoned." There is no doubt that Rama and Krishna worshipped Shiva, but the purpose behind that is clear in the Lord Krishna's words in Moxadharma of Mahabharata: tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare | sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH || (It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana IN Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.) ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana | tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham || yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam | AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH || O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion. na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana | iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram | putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA | na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu | R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham || O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing that well, I, by myself, worship Rudra, the Ishvara, for the sake of getting sons. Indeed Vishnu does not bow, for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra. --- Thus Shiva is to be worshipped, but the hierarchy should be noted. I hope you don't put aside these verses as being put forth by yet another fanatical Vaishnava, whose partial analysis leads to this position. Methinks it is only partial analysis, perhaps again due to acceptance of/respect to all or even disinterest to wade through the scriptural texts, that results in 'all are one' or 'all are different forms of same Brahman' kind of approach. The name of second adhyAya in the brahmasutras is so called by all bhAShyakAras on brahma-sutras because all contradictions and oppositions (Virodha) to brahma-mImAmsa are removed. The fact that the Lord refers to them as that which aid in concluding R^iShibhirbahudhA gItaM ChandobhirvividhaiH pR^ithak.h brahmasUtrapadaishchaiva hetumadbhirvinishchitaiH (13.05)|| highlights the importance of Brahmasutras. Regards, Nomadeva Sanjay Rath [srath] Monday, September 16, 2002 12:56 PM vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Ishta Devata- to Sanjayji Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaya Dear Nomadeva, Purusha sukta is not necessarily talking about the Jagannatha vesha but of the Vishwaroopa of Bhagavan. This roopa has also been described in the Gita. The right or wrong theory is based on the internal nature of the perceiver - Jupiter says right until proved otherwise, Saturn says wrong until proved right. It is the nature modified by the prevailing Gunas of a dasha that make us have opinions and the mana is most difficult to please. All are right is a respect for all and it also shows the humility with which we receive those who may not have put as much thought or whose thought we cannot fully understand. A rigorous analysis will necessarily require an understanding of the original and the intent and circumstances of record. This is very sketchy as on date. Take Islam and the concept of marriage. There are those who strongly favor 4 marriages, and those who say it was the word of the prophet and yet others who say that this is a misinterpretation. The sayer is not available, and we can only take sides based on our understanding of right which is further based on our acculturation process. This is the simplest way of getting into the trivialities of a religion, which like language has faced erosion and corruption of time. The english word 'form' means something that determines shape like a mould or a figure and bring in the concept of a material existence or a body. Its hindi equivalent is 'akaara' and not Vesha. Vesha can simply mean guise or disguise. That is why I have been very careful in using the word Vesha all the time. When all the ways and forms and moods are but guises, what does He look like is the question? Some will blindly accept the descriptions of Vishwaroopa given in the Purusha sookta, others rely more on the Gita and the chaturbhooja roopa whiloe others find the radha-krishna roopa as the most accurate description as this alone fits an observed fact. Others go further to say that the Lord had more potential as a baby when He performed various miracles and know Him as bal Gopal, whereas the Lord Himself says that He has various conceivable guise like a horse, Raama, Brihaspati etc. For a moment forget the Lord and look at yourself. This life you have a certain body, form etc and are known as Nomadeva Sharma, and how many such bodies have you worn for how many such times, yet you believe that the present Vesha is the truest and permanent. This permanency is limited to the Mana which must exist for a certain time (max 144 years I believe). It is in this manner that at a point of time the mana believes that a particular form is the truest and this in turn is based again on some assumptions and learning as part of the acculturation process. There is yet another view of the Vishwaroopa in that the various hands are but our hands and the various heads are but our heads. This debate is again nothing but two of His heads talking with each other trying to determine supremacy of which of them is 'more' permanent. The truth it seems is that any form is attributed to the Guna's and the Tatwa (or even the tanmatra) and our human mind will always tend to attach this form with some elemental physical existence which is its limitation and folly. To obviate this, the description of the Lord as Jagannath Mahaprabhu seems to be the most fitting, again for my mind with its acculturation. The blind men statement related to people at a similar station and similar circumstances as was being discussed. It is nothing new that every new thinker in Indian philosophy has found acceptance only after he or she has criticised a predecessor, since for the time being of his/her existence the older teaching had failed to find a solution to the popular problems and intellectual needs. Buddha criticised the Veda, Shankara criticised Buddha, Madhava criticised Sankara and so on till Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who was perhaps the first who said everything so clearly without criticising anyone. He gave a fine disposition and one that satisfyies me, so I tend to agree...By agreeing with Sri Chaitanya I am not disagreeing with others. I just find this to be more filling and intellectually satisfying as I was unable to underdstand as to how Parasara could have made a mistake in worshipping Shiva! There was no mistake, Rama, Krishna & Chaitanya did so..thats how the mind reasoned. Virodha is based on the desire to prove ones opinion which again is based on the inherent folly of the Mana in intellectual determination of supremacy by the mere fact of permanency. Avirodha does not necessarily mean pleasing. That was a very thought provoking discussion. With best wishes Sanjay Rath http://sanjayrath.tripod.com News - Today's headlines http://news. 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.