Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Dear Sarbani-jI, Thanks for your mail. The originals of the Upanishads, Vedas, prAtishakyas, Puranas, Mahabharata are available at http://mum.edu/vedicreserve/. You will find that the 53th adhyAya of Brihannaradiya purana contains passages on Jyotisha. Pls note that I am not saying that I know Brahman well. Your mail came before I could respond to some comments. Well, the point is that whatever I wrote was information i had. Information is different from Knowledge. So, terms like Gnanavriddha do not apply to me. Secondly, it is NOT information that I dug out. It is there in the works of my Acharya, which gives the strength of confidence, but whom I do not want to mention, lest I should do the same mistake that Sri Ranganathan did: Quote a person from my school of thought to support my school of thought; in other words, svaskandhArohaNa (mounting one's own shoulders). However, simple sanskrit language can tell you that there have been many unnecessary interpolations in the translation you have mentioned. The first verse does NOT have any corresponding phrase of 'whether it is this God or that God'. It is the translator's /your inclusion. Secondly, the verse clearly talks of 'brahmaNo rUpaM'; that He possesses a rUpa is something dismissed by people who hold Brahman to be 'truly' nirAkAra. Thirdly, I hope you are not misconstruing the kaThopanishad's words of Brahman being 'ashabdaM' (also found in Brihadaranyaka) as His being beyond ALL speech and words. That is not possible because the Brihadaranyaka also says that the Atma (wrongly translated as 'Self' or 'self') is to seen by, heard by, contemplated upon and meditated upon (MaitreyI brAhmaNa). Also, it would be self-contradictory for the Upanishad to say that Brahman cannot be expressed by words AT ALL and later launch a full adhyAya describing its 'mahatva'. So, the phrase 'ashabdaM' should be understood as 'completely describable by words'; which aligns with the Kenopanishad (actually Jaiminiya TalavakAropanishad). This explanation is reasonable, otherwise, the Upanishad should be held as kindless and ruthless, for, denouncing a wrong knower of Brahman (yathodakaM durge vR^iShTaM parvateShu vidhAvati) and at the same time, saying that Brahman is beyond speech. All in all, if you actually considered Brahman as beyond knowledge, how did you even conclude that Shiva and Vishnu are equal? Or even 'tat tvaM asi'? I admit that I don't get the point in your posting. Are you trying to say that one cannot say that Shiva and Vishnu are not same? Regards, Nomadeva Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani] Monday, April 28, 2003 5:36 PM vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha jI) Dear Nomadeva, >From the Keno Upanishad: Yadi manyase subedeti dabhramebapi nunam tvam bettha brahmani rupam Yadasya tvam yadasya debeshbatha nu mimamsyameva te manye viditam (If you think “I know it”- verily you have known very little of it; that which you consider as Brahman, whether it is this god or that god-this has to be correctly debated upon.) Naham manye subedeti no na vedeti veda cha Yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda cha (I do not take it as well known; nor do I consider it as unknown. He who has realized it knows it in truth; and, he who has not realized it knows it not.) >From the Katha Upanishad: Ashabdamsparshamrupamabyayam Tatharasam nityamgandhabancha Anadyanantam mahatma param dhruvam Nichayya tanmrityumulhatpramuchyate (The supreme Brahman is inexpressible by words; it cannot be felt by the sense of touch; it is beyond name and form, taste and smell. It is eternal, without beginning and end. Realizing this Supreme, man frees himself from the jaws of samsara.) >From the Mundaka Upanishad: Na tatro surya bhati na chandratarakam Nema vidyuto bhanti kutoyamagnih Tvameva bhantamanubhanti sarvam Tasya bhasa sarvamidam vibhati (Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars--what to speak of the ordinary fire--can illumine the Atman. The Atman illumines all and everything else shines after it.) Brahmairvedamamritam purastat Brahma pashchadbrahma dakshinatshcauttarena Adhoshchaurdham cha prasritam Brahmaivedam vishwamidam varishtham (This Brahman is the everlasting; It pervades everything from all the quarters – the north, east, west and south – from above and from below. Nay, it is everything. It is the Supreme.) Translations by Swami Gambhirananda Best regards, Sarbani The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Dear Nomadeva, All the Upanishads are replete with innumerable shlokas on the Brahman. (I have various translations with me in hard copy). If I begin, I cannot end. Its just that your interpretation of the Brahman was rather unique. I do not wish to enter into this debate now, as my mind is neither on Vishnu nor on Shiva, at this moment. It is swimming in some Void where debates are meaningless. I hope you excuse me. Best regards, Sarbani Nomadeva Sharma [nomadeva] Monday, April 28, 2003 5:56 PM vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Sarbani jI) Dear Sarbani-jI, Thanks for your mail. The originals of the Upanishads, Vedas, prAtishakyas, Puranas, Mahabharata are available at http://mum.edu/vedicreserve/. You will find that the 53th adhyAya of Brihannaradiya purana contains passages on Jyotisha. Pls note that I am not saying that I know Brahman well. Your mail came before I could respond to some comments. Well, the point is that whatever I wrote was information i had. Information is different from Knowledge. So, terms like Gnanavriddha do not apply to me. Secondly, it is NOT information that I dug out. It is there in the works of my Acharya, which gives the strength of confidence, but whom I do not want to mention, lest I should do the same mistake that Sri Ranganathan did: Quote a person from my school of thought to support my school of thought; in other words, svaskandhArohaNa (mounting one's own shoulders). However, simple sanskrit language can tell you that there have been many unnecessary interpolations in the translation you have mentioned. The first verse does NOT have any corresponding phrase of 'whether it is this God or that God'. It is the translator's /your inclusion. Secondly, the verse clearly talks of 'brahmaNo rUpaM'; that He possesses a rUpa is something dismissed by people who hold Brahman to be 'truly' nirAkAra. Thirdly, I hope you are not misconstruing the kaThopanishad's words of Brahman being 'ashabdaM' (also found in Brihadaranyaka) as His being beyond ALL speech and words. That is not possible because the Brihadaranyaka also says that the Atma (wrongly translated as 'Self' or 'self') is to seen by, heard by, contemplated upon and meditated upon (MaitreyI brAhmaNa). Also, it would be self-contradictory for the Upanishad to say that Brahman cannot be expressed by words AT ALL and later launch a full adhyAya describing its 'mahatva'. So, the phrase 'ashabdaM' should be understood as 'completely describable by words'; which aligns with the Kenopanishad (actually Jaiminiya TalavakAropanishad). This explanation is reasonable, otherwise, the Upanishad should be held as kindless and ruthless, for, denouncing a wrong knower of Brahman (yathodakaM durge vR^iShTaM parvateShu vidhAvati) and at the same time, saying that Brahman is beyond speech. All in all, if you actually considered Brahman as beyond knowledge, how did you even conclude that Shiva and Vishnu are equal? Or even 'tat tvaM asi'? I admit that I don't get the point in your posting. Are you trying to say that one cannot say that Shiva and Vishnu are not same? Regards, Nomadeva Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani] Monday, April 28, 2003 5:36 PM vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha jI) Dear Nomadeva, >From the Keno Upanishad: Yadi manyase subedeti dabhramebapi nunam tvam bettha brahmani rupam Yadasya tvam yadasya debeshbatha nu mimamsyameva te manye viditam (If you think I know it- verily you have known very little of it; that which you consider as Brahman, whether it is this god or that god-this has to be correctly debated upon.) Naham manye subedeti no na vedeti veda cha Yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda cha (I do not take it as well known; nor do I consider it as unknown. He who has realized it knows it in truth; and, he who has not realized it knows it not.) >From the Katha Upanishad: Ashabdamsparshamrupamabyayam Tatharasam nityamgandhabancha Anadyanantam mahatma param dhruvam Nichayya tanmrityumulhatpramuchyate (The supreme Brahman is inexpressible by words; it cannot be felt by the sense of touch; it is beyond name and form, taste and smell. It is eternal, without beginning and end. Realizing this Supreme, man frees himself from the jaws of samsara.) >From the Mundaka Upanishad: Na tatro surya bhati na chandratarakam Nema vidyuto bhanti kutoyamagnih Tvameva bhantamanubhanti sarvam Tasya bhasa sarvamidam vibhati (Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars--what to speak of the ordinary fire--can illumine the Atman. The Atman illumines all and everything else shines after it.) Brahmairvedamamritam purastat Brahma pashchadbrahma dakshinatshcauttarena Adhoshchaurdham cha prasritam Brahmaivedam vishwamidam varishtham (This Brahman is the everlasting; It pervades everything from all the quarters the north, east, west and south from above and from below. Nay, it is everything. It is the Supreme.) Translations by Swami Gambhirananda Best regards, Sarbani The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 > > Sarbani Sarkar [sarbani] > Monday, April 28, 2003 6:17 PM > All the Upanishads are replete with innumerable shlokas on > the Brahman. (I have various translations with me in hard > copy). If I begin, I cannot end. Certainly, it is not just the Upanishads that extol Brahman but the entire spectrum of Vedas vide Katha Upanishad's 'sarve vedA yatpadamAmanti' and Gita's 'vedaishcha sarvaiH ahameva vedyo'. > Its just that your interpretation of the Brahman was rather unique. Perhaps you have not seen darshanas other than advaita (or gauDIya, may be), which is why you never come across equating Vishnu to Brahman. In any case, there is nothing unique about it. Both words, Vishnu and Brahman mean the same thing: All-pervading. Brahman comes from 'bR^iha vR^iddhau' (to grow: This is laxaNikArtha as told by Shiva in Harivamsha) and Vishnu comes from 'viShalR^I vyAptau' (to pervade). > I do not wish to enter into this debate now, as my mind is neither > on Vishnu nor on Shiva, at this moment. It is swimming in some > Void where debates are meaningless. I hope you excuse me. As you wish. Regards, Nomadeva > > Best regards, > > Sarbani The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. 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.