Devotion, Gita, Form vs Formlessness (Ajith and Gauranga)

[Guest guest]

>

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr]

> Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:44 AM

> vedic astrology

> [vedic astrology] Devotion, Gita, Form vs

Formlessness (Ajith

> and Gauranga)

 

> In an age when religious fundamentalism, bigotry and

narrow-mindedness

> are taking root in every corner of the world, we

need to be sure that

> we understand religious literature correctly. Narrow

interpretations

> are good because they create discipline, dedication

and devotion. But,

> they also promote bigotry and narrow-mindedness. At

one stage or the

> other, one's soul has to rise above the narrow

interpretations.

 

> To me, Krishna's directive in Gita that one

worshipping any god is in

> fact worshipping Krishna only, albeit not knowing

it, is a very clear

> indication Krishna does not discriminate.

 

Let's see this one a bit closely. But before that, pls

note that this has nothing to do with Krishna and some

other devotee, but just the plain matter of whether

God has a form or is he formless. In the process, I'd

stick to scriptures irrespective of whether the stance

taken will further "religious fundamentalism, bigotry"

and what not; obviously the objective is not to find a

solution that decreases fundamentalism or whatever.

 

Krishna's saying that He is worshipped even when other

Gods are worshipped is in Gita 9.23:

 

ye.apyanyadevatAbhaktA yajante shraddhayAnvitAH |

te.api mAmeva kaunteya yajantyavidhipUrvakam.h ||

 

Even those, who worship other devatas with devotion,

worship Me only, though not in the right way.

(avidhipUrvakaM)

 

It is most surprising that this verse has been taken

to mean that worship of any devatA as is, is

acceptable to Krishna. His magnamious compassion

aside, but, to be complacent with such an idea, one

must ignore the force of the phrase 'avidhipUrvakaM'.

If there were to absolutely no difference, why then

this 'avidhipUrvakaM'?

 

Secondly, why is there, differences in what one begets

out of such worship? Why are worshippers of other Gods

are referred as not knowing Him? (na tu mAmabhijAnanti

tattvenAtashchyavanti te)

 

Thirdly, it makes no sense for the Lord, then, to

reprimand elsewhere (7.20) the worshippers of other

gods as those who are deluded by passion and by wrong

knowledge: kAmaistaistairhR^itaj~nAnAH

prapadyante.anyadevatAH | What then is the right

knowledge? The earlier verse clarifies: vAsudevaH

sarvamiti sa mahAtmA sudurlabhaH || If this 'vAsudevaH

sarvamiti' were taken to denote identity between

vAsudeva and everything, there is no point in

reprimanding worshippers of anyadevatA (who would have

been same as vAsudeva, according to advaitic reading!)

 

The Lord's point is clear: Whoever worships other

devatas are doing so because they don't know Him,

their prabhu and their creator (ahaM adirhi devAnAM).

 

> also read the bhashyams (commentaries) on

BhagavadGita by

> Ramanujacharya and, more importantly, Adi Sankara.

Adi Sankara's

> commentary is truly brilliant and timeless.

 

I understand why you say that. To an 'outsider' (i.e.

not a follower of advaita), many of Shankara's

interpretations are artificial (read on 2.12; his

interpretation of the plural), twisted (on 7.4/5) and

imposed (on 16.8; in general about Arjuna being a

madhyamAdhikAri). Advaita takes a severe beating in

Gita in many places. Consider the Lord's saying that

it is demoniac who consider this world to be NOT real.

Advaitic commentators (not Shankara, though) have

forsaken this simple straightforward reading in the

name of unnecessary epistemological concepts of

'mithyA' and 'asat'.

 

> I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada

dismiss Adi Sankara

> saying that he served a

> limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and

should hence be ignored.

 

I read somewhere (perhaps the Kanchi kamakoti site)

that Shankara himself holds Kumarila Bhatta as

responsible for 'handling' buddhism.

 

> Scriptures extol God's formless nature (nirguna and

gunaateeta), and,

> at the same time,

> they praise his beautiful form. I am one of those

people who do not like to dismiss any

> scripture as being "wrong". In my humble view, each

and every word and sentence in

> Vedas and Upanishats is 100% correct and it is a

matter of rising above the limitations

> of our thinking and understanding them. Thus my

stand is that god is formless and yet

> has a form.

 

Vedas and Upanishads are 100% right. If you don't like

some Puranas being wrong or vyAsa could not have

written wrong, I wonder what you would have to say

about Shankara's subcommentators (read Vachaspati

Mishra) accepting that out of 550+ (this number is

according to the advaita tradition) sUtras (written by

Vyasa), only a couple of them support advaita!!!

 

> My stand is that god is formless as far as the

four-dimensional world

> we live in is concerned.

> Though he takes many avataras/incarnations and leads

an existence in this four-dimensional

> world every now and then, his Supreme manifestation

is formless as far as this four-dimensional

> world is concerned.

 

I'd go with what Padma Purana (6.227.40) says about

nirguNa:

 

kalyANaguNavAn shrIshaH sarvakAmaphalapradaH |

yo.asau nirguNa ityuktaH shAstreShu jagadIshvaraH |

prAkR^itair heyasamyuktair guNahInatvamuchyate |

 

The Lord of Lakshmi, bestower of all fruits, has

(infinite) auspicious qualities. Whenever He, the Lord

of Universe, is called as nirguNa in the shAstra, it

is because He is said to devoid of any contact with

the abominable guNas of prakriti.

 

By this, one avoids the unpalatable consequence of

accepting the illogical thesis of a formless,

attributeless, actionless Being (read 'advaitic

Brahman') being the giver of all fruits and accepts

the scriptural notion that God is always with a form,

though not of the same stuff that our current forms

are. Which is why there really is no contradiction

when the Upanishads say (i) that He is neither coarse

nor fine etc and (ii) that He has the most auspicious

form (yat te rUpaM kalyANatamaM tatte pashyAmi --

Ishavasya).

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Narasimha,

 

Namaste.

 

Gauranga wrote in reply:

 

> Since everything in God's creation has form, how can God have

> no form? The creation would have something God does not.

 

I don't understand why you are diverting the topic. The issue is whether Rabia

would get the same result for her devotion to Allah as Mira Bai (for example)

would get for the same kind of devotion to Krishna.

 

Of course not. I mean not necessarily. Even two people worshipping the same

Krishna will not attain exactly the same result. This is because everyone has a

personal relationship with God and this relationship is unique. One may follow

certain eternal residents of the spiritual world in their mood of serving

Krishna, but his relationship will still be unique. But if a religious teaching

represents a less personal form of God, then naturally its followers will be

able to realise only an impersonal relationship, or rahter oneness, because you

can't really have a relationship with something without personal qualities.

Taking an example of different results, one may be inclined to worship Krishna

is Hins Vrindavana form, and someone else in Hid Dwaraka form. Both froms are

eternally present in the spiritual world, but the mood is different. Also

within Vrindavana one may be inclined to worship Him as the cowherd boys do,

and someoe else, as the gopis do. So there is diversity in unity, and this is

Sri Caitanya's teaching. The difference of Sankara's interpretation is that he

emphasises only the oneness, and dismisses the variety taking it to be

material. His philosophy is replete with contradictions, take solely the theory

of vivarta-vada. If there is only the brahman existing, how can he fall into

illusion? If Brahman is one, where does the illusion come from? If the illusion

is non/existent, how can it put Brahman under its effect? If Maya can put

Brahman into illusion, then Maya is greater than Brahman. But then how can the

Brahman be freed from illusion, and why to we take the powerless Brahman to be

the Absoulte Truth and not Maya?

 

All this confucion comes only because of the ultimate conception of

nondifferentiated Brahman. But if we accept that Parabrahman, i.e. Krishna can

never fall into illusion, because this energy is emanating from Him, but the

individual suls can come under maya's influence, then the whole problem is

solved. So Sankara contradicetd even Vyasa, tha author of Vedanta-sutras in his

Sariraka Bhasya. Besides that Sri Caitanya warned the devotees that whoever

hears this bhasya, may lose his devotion. So the devotees are very cautious

with it, which does not mena they do not study it for research purposes.

 

Besides that, if you take Sankara's commentaries literally, you may find that he

contradicts himself, when later on he writes a number of devotional poems, in

which he ridicules his speculator disciples who do not want to surrender to

Krishna. Let me cite one famous example, the Bhaja Govindam verse:

 

First and final verses of Bhaja GovindaM in ITRANS format with translation

bhajagovindaM bhajagovindaMgovindaM bhajamuuDhamate .saMpraapte sannihite

kaalenahi nahi rakshati DukR^iJNkaraNe .. 1..

 

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar

will not save you at the time of your death.

 

bhajagovindaM bhajagovindaMgovindaM bhajamuuDhamate

..naamasmaraNaadanyamupaayaMnahi pashyaamo bhavataraNe .. 33..

 

Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh fool! Other than chanting

the Lord's names, there is no other way to cross the life's ocean.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET Phone:+36-309-140-839

 

 

This is a very important question. In an age when religious fundamentalism,

bigotry and narrow-mindedness are taking root in every corner of the world, we

need to be sure that we understand religious literature correctly. Narrow

interpretations are good because they create discipline, dedication and

devotion. But, they also promote bigotry and narrow-mindedness. At one stage or

the other, one's soul has to rise above the narrow interpretations.

 

To me, Krishna's directive in Gita that one worshipping any god is in fact

worshipping Krishna only, albeit not knowing it, is a very clear indication

Krishna does not discriminate.

 

When it comes to Gita, I know that a lot of people following Srila Prabhupada

have their own views and don't necessarily agree with my views. But I humbly

suggest to them that they should also read the bhashyams (commentaries) on

BhagavadGita by Ramanujacharya and, more importantly, Adi Sankara. Adi

Sankara's commentary is truly brilliant and timeless. You can access the texts

at http://www.granthamandira.org/dl/.

 

I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada dismiss Adi Sankara saying that

he served a limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and should hence

be ignored. If an incarnation of Shiva can be dismissed as having served a

limited purpose, isn't it possible that Srila Prabhupada too had a "limited

purpose" to fulfill (creating blind faith in the Almighty among the people of

this age) and wrote his translations accordingly?

 

In my humble view, Adi Sankara is the most brilliant Vedic scholar, thinker,

philosopher and commentator to descend on earth since the beginning of Kali

yuga. Nobody else matches his brilliance. Do try to read him!

 

> That would

> mean that God is less than His creation, or in other words, that the

> complete is incomplete, which is simply illogical. The complete whole

> must contain everything within and beyond our experience, otherwise

> He cannot be complete.

While on the topic of god being formless or having a form, please allow me to add my two cents.

 

Scriptures extol God's formless nature (nirguna and gunaateeta), and, at the

same time, they praise his beautiful form. I am one of those people who do not

like to dismiss any scripture as being "wrong". In my humble view, each and

every word and sentence in Vedas and Upanishats is 100% correct and it is a

matter of rising above the limitations of our thinking and understanding them.

Thus my stand is that god is formless and yet has a form.

 

I will copy from my mail yesterday:

 

"Just think of one thing. Where is Vaikuntha? Where does Vishnu live? Does it

exist in the four dimensions that we can perceive? Or, do Vaikuntha and Vishnu

exist in a universe that extends to other dimensions apart from the four

dimensions we can perceive? Could that universe have infinite dimensions? Could

it be possible that we cannot see (perceive) Vaikuntha and Vishnu accurately

unless we gain the ability to enter those additional dimensions? When we live

and think in four dimensions, could our common sense go haywire when we are

thinking of Gods who exist in an infinite-dimensional space? Could concepts

that sound silly (like X coming from Y and Y coming from X and yet both having

no beginning and no end) be correct in that space? Could upanishats be

correct?"

 

My stand is that god is formless as far as the four-dimensional world we live in

is concerned. Though he takes many avataras/incarnations and leads an existence

in this four-dimensional world every now and then, his Supreme manifestation is

formless as far as this four-dimensional world is concerned. However, in an

extended infinite-dimensional space (which most of us cannot perceive), he does

have a splendid form as described by sages. Great sages, through the complete

knowledge of Atman and Brahman, were blessed to be capable of perceiving these

infinite dimensions and travel in those dimensions and saw the transcendental

form of Vishnu other gods. If we get the complete understanding of the nature

of Atman and Brahman as Krishna taught, we too will be able to see Him.

 

Thus all the contradictory statements of scriptures that god has a form and yet

is formless are correct in their own way.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......