Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr] > Friday, May 02, 2003 8:22 AM > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology] Consolidated reply to Nomadeva Dear PVR garu, Thanks for your comments on the mail and apologies for the delay in reply. I am not sure I will be able to continue this chain, being severely constrained by time. ==== Please note that the interpretation is not necessarily my formal view. But certainly this is a possible and tenable translation. My whole idea is that you cannot suggest that we should "ignore" the stuff in Shiva purana, Linga purana etc just because of a handful of verses in other puranas. === Let me clarify: 'tAmasa purANAs' are not to be ignored wholesale. As told by Garuda purana (I haven't given that quote), sAttvika portions exist in tAmasic purANas and vice-versa. The skanda purANa contains the satya-nArAyaNa katha. Another thing; it is not even 'vaiShNava purANas vs shaiva purANas' (your reply below gives that impression). I've heard that R.G.Bhandarkar talks of such a classification (with devI purANAs also 'contending' so to speak); I don't know if he based his classification on purANAs or from the surmised contents of purANAs. The issue here is that of sAttvika, rAjasika and tAmasika purANas or portions to be precise. After seeing your translation below, I think it should be possible for anybody to 'loosely' translate some stories and establish Vishnu-sarvottamatva. Perhaps that is why the Hari-vamsha (the khilA portion of Mahabharata) says: vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | Adau ante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate || ==== > eSha mohaM sR^ijAmyAshu yo janAn.h mohayiShyati | tvaM > cha rudra mahAbAho mohashAstrANi kAraya || > atatthyAni vitatthyAni darshayasva mahAbhuja | > prakAshaM kuru chA.atmAnamaprakAshaM cha mAM kuru || This is my anvaya krama: "Ashu eSha mohaM sR^ijAmi yo janAn mohayiShyati. rudra, mahAbAho, tvaM cha mohashAstrANi atathyAni kAraya. mahAbhuja, vitathyAni darshayasva. atmAnam cha prakAshaM kuru. mAM cha aprakAshaM kuru." ==== Even if this is a loose interpretation, the word, 'vitathyAni' has been interpreted wrongly. viparItAni tatthyAni iti vitatthyAni. You have perhaps translated it as 'visheShAni tatthyAni iti vitatthyAni'. That is not correct. Can you check the dictionary pls? ==== Translation: I spontaneously create this delusion, which deludes people [and gives them certain ideas, as expounded further in Vaishnava puranas]. O powerful Rudra, you establish this knowledge of delusion [which does not allow the supreme understanding of Brahman] as something that is not quite correct. O mighty one, establish the ultimate truth. Let yourself be seen [now] and let me [and my delusion] withdraw. ==== Assuming your translation of vitathyAni is correct, with the adhyAhAra, your krama is: Ashu eSha [vaiShNava purANAneShUkta vishayebhyaH] mohaM sR^ijAmi yo janAn mohayiShyati. rudra, mahAbAho, tvaM cha (brahmaGYAnAdviparIta) mohashAstrANi atathyAni [iti] kAraya. mahAbhuja, vitathyAni darshayasva. AtmAnam cha prakAshaM kuru. mAM cha aprakAshaM kuru. The problems are: The main problem is the adhyAhAra. You have imported precisely those words that is the subject of contention. It would be akin to the claim that 'ahaM brahmAsmi' establishes difference from Brahman only (Ofcourse it does, but not because of what follows): ahaM brahmA [na] asmi !! Would that be acceptable? Secondly, the whole thing does not gel in such a translation. First, Rudra is asked to create mohashAstra. And in the same breath, he is asked to tell the truth also?!?! Note that Vishnu says He will create moha, Rudra is asked to mohashAstra. Thirdly, the adhyAhAra of 'iti' in 'mohashAstrANi atathyAni iti kAraya' is quite unwarranted. Even if that were granted, the problem would be conjunctive 'cha'. If Vishnu were to say, "I shall create moha, but you remove such delusions", the line would have been "mohaM sR^ijAmi, tvam _tu_ mohashAstrANi atathyAni iti darshayasyva'. Fourthly, with that kind of adhyAhAra, one can interpret the whole lot of tAmasic stuff in 'favor of viShNu'. I will respond to that in Sarbani-jI's mail. === The bottomline is that certainly this is a possible and tenable translation. My whole idea is that you cannot suggest that we should "ignore" the stuff in Shiva purana, Linga purana etc just because of a handful of verses in some other puranas. Those verses in question can be interpreted differently. === As depicted, the above is not a feasible translation. In any case, please be assured that by ignoring, I meant that one cannot take the direct meaning seriously. With lot of imports, anything can be interpreted. === On Gita [Note: This analogy is mine. It is not from any sruti or smriti. :-) ] === The analogy was a good one, though. > > 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'? > > I simply followed Adi Sankara's interpretation. Adi Sankara's bhashyam > is given below: > > "ye’py anya-devatA-bhaktA anyAsu devatAsu bhaktA anya-devatA-bhaktAH > santo yajante pUjayanti zraddhayA Astikya-buddhyAnvitA anugatAH, > te’pi mAm eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pUrvakam avidhir ajJAnaM > tat-pUrvakaM yajanta ity arthaH" > > Thus Adi Sankara takes "avidhipUrvakaM" to mean "accompanied by lack > of knowledge". So I translated it as "albeit not knowing it". Even I had translated 'avidhi pUrvakaM' as 'aj~nAnapUrvakaM'. To know what is meant by j~nAna in this context, the earlier verses of 9th chapter clarify: paraM bhAvamajAnanto mama bhUtamaheshvaram.h, na cha mAM tAni karmANi nibadhnanti, mahAtmAnastu mAM pArtha daivIM prakR^itimAshritAH, bhajantyananyamanaso j~nAtvA bhUtAdimavyayam.h The Lord says that He indeed is the Lord of all beings (which people of demoniac nature do not realize), that His is unbound by Karmas, the great men, having taken refuge of the divinely prakriti guNa, worship him, they worship me with a steady mind, knowing Me to the immutable originator of all Beings. If the equation 'anya-devatA = Krishna' were to be a part of j~nAna, the 'avidhi-pUrvakaM' wouldn't there. > > 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) === Well, where is it clear that he is referring to worshippers of other gods in that verse? The key is "tattvena" (by the true and complete nature). First he says in 9.23 that "those who are praying to other gods with devotion are also paying to me, albeit without knowledge [that they are praying to me]." Then he clarifies why so in the first part of 9.24: "I am the receiver of all prayers and efforts." This is clarifying 9.23 and giving the rationale. Then, he declares the the second part of 9.24: "those who do not understand me by my true nature perish and become re-born". So he is not necessarily referring to those who pray to other gods. Even those who pray to Krishna, but not realizing His true nature, will perish and be reborn as the verse implies. The key is not worshipping Krishna or Shiva or Aditya. The key is understanding the true nature of the Almighty. === Even if we accept your point that Krishna is stressing that correct knowledge of _Him_ is needed, the part that 'key is not worshipping Krishna or Shiva' is illegitimate, considering that all through the 9th chapter (and earlier chapters), the Lord is talking about _His_ worship. Secondly, that worshippers of others do not 'obtain' Krishna (refer 9.25) is the question I had raised: why is there, differences in what one begets out of such worship? If the phrase avidhipUrvakaM indicates that the worshippers of anyadevatA worship Krishna only, albeit without knowledge (that He is the One who receives their worship), it follows that, on the contrary, people who worship Krishna, worship Him in the right way. This 'in the right way' or 'are doing the right thing' is implicit. Since your meaning of 'avidhipUrvaka' was 'ajJAna-pUrvakaM', the opposite of that, which applies to Krishna's devotees, is 'jnAnapUrvakaM'. Therefore, it is not devotees of Krishna who are said NOT to know Him, but devotees of other devatAs. In any case, 'tattvenAtashchyavanti te' (they shall sink, not knowing Me in reality) cannot refer to the devotees of Krishna, even if they do not know Him. That is because in the earlier verse the Lord clearly says that He shall look after such devotees well-being. This is the point. Whether one knows or understands Krishna as the Supreme Brahman or not, if one is devoted to Him, one's well-being is guaranteed. On the other hand, the same is not assured in the case of worshippers of other devatAs. ==== How is it clear that nobody praying to Shiva is clear about the true nature of the receiver of all effort? The issue is not whether one is praying to Krishna or Narasimha or Shiva. The issue is whether one understands the true nature of the receiver of all prayers and efforts of this universe. ==== The issue is whether one understands that the receiver of all prayers and efforts of this universe is Krishna. That's the direct statement of Krishna. Anything else is a superimposed opinion. === That supreme receiver of all effort is Brahman, who Krishna represents in these passages. Without truly understanding His nature, one will not get moksha. === What is the bAdhaka (obstacle) in accepting the direct consequence: Krishna is Brahman. Why are you saying 'Krishna represents Brahman', as if they are separate entities? ==== > > 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 reprimand is for those who pray with various desires. ==== May be; if the key was 'desires', Krishna should have just said: whoever worships anybody (other devatas inc me) with desires, do so with deluded knowledge. Is Krishna saying that his devotees do not have desires at all? Not so, in 7.16 where the Lord enlists the kinds of His devotees, 'arthArthI' (one who desires wealth; which is why Shankara's commentary on this verse is not correct) is also considered devotee. So, is such an arthArthI censured here? To some extent (bhavatyalpamedhasaM), but not like those, who worship other devatas with desire. If one does not superimpose one's readings and reads the text directly, the idea that worship of Krishna is of a different class altogether from that of any other devatA should be clear. === Yes, my concept is that Brahman is the supreme power that existed for ever, will exist for ever, which is above the gunas (i.e. whether Brehman has form or not is irrelevant. When I say Brehman is simply above the three gunas, it does not make Brehman inferior to entities with gunas. Brehman simply is above gunas. Thus some may view Brahman to have a form and some may view Brahman to have no form, but Brahman is above even the considerations of form or formlessness) and which fills the entire universe (perceptible and imperceptible). === PVR garu, if it is a matter of how one's opinions differ from others, there would haven't been so much of a problem. The discussion is primarily because of two Vedantic concepts: (i) Brahman (and other atIndriya padArtha such as dharma, adharma etc) is known only through scripture: OM shAstrayonitvAt.h OM and (ii) Given that multiple views can be seen even in shAstra, how can one entity be the subject of them all? To answer that, the brahmasUtra says: OM tattu samanvayAt.h OM and OM gati sAmAnyAt.h OM. The knowledge of Brahman can be obtained by harmonizing all scriptures. To answer how that can be done, when the objectives of shruti statements are different, the latter says that the purport of scriptures is uniform. > > notice one contradiction in your mail: your position > > that Vishnu and Shiva are forms of Brahman contradicts > > the idea that they are Brahman's forms with various combinations of > > gunas. Brahman is said to be above guNAs and yet His forms are with > > guNAs? So then, that > What is the contradiction? 1. Brahman can never be touched by guNAs. 2. If Vishnu = Brahman + sattva guNa, however you interpret that '+', it follows that Vishnu is actually a form of prakriti and not Brahman. In which case, you shouldn't be saying Vishnu is Brahman's form or anyway related to Brahman. > sruti reference saying so. Finally, if you take Vushni to be > > gunaateeta, he becomes my Brahman and whatever contradiction you > suggested would apply again. I am not saying that other devatas including Shiva are Vishnu's rUpas, like you did. So, the contradiction won't apply. > > would make Brahman different from His forms! The most > > So? Is that incomprehensible? No, it is illogical. For the embodied, form being different from substance is acceptable (gauNashchenna AtmashabdAt). Not so for Brahman; for, that is a limitation. And Brahman has no limitations. === > > important objection to all that there is no scriptural support to > > your idea; pls show me a _shruti_ supporting your point that Brahma > > is Brahman+rajo guNa, Vishnu = Brahman+sattva guNa and Shiva = > > Brahman+tamo guNa. Another problem would be to > Again, I am not arguing that my philosophy is right. I outlined my philosophy only for the sake of clarity. I never volunteered to prove my philosophy. The argument has a narrow focus - Is Vishnu superior to Shiva or Shiva superior to Vishnu or we better not compare them? I hold the third position and you hold the first position, which you set out to prove. Let us stick to it for now. === I think the shruti quotes given earlier demonstrate Vishnu being Brahman. You have not accepted it because of the theory that you hold. Don't you think it is fair then to ask for scriptural (shruti) support for your theory? === No, in my thesis, supreme Brahman has three main forms - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are all forms of Brahman and are mutually incomparable (and incomparable with Brahman too)! Because these forms have gunas and Brahman is above gunas does not necessarily imply that these three forms are somehow inferior. === PVR-garu, (1) they are incomparable and (2) Vishnu, B, S are Brahman with guNAs, Brahman is _above_ guNAs, are indeed contradictory. The only way this can be accepted is to accept some mysticism. === > > attempts at reconciliation. Many advaitins (like > > Vivekananda, for example) have reverberated > > Gaudapada's words that advaita can shelter all > > philosophies, but that is an empty boast. Neither does > > Gaudapada nor do ppl like above understand the dialect > > of dvaita -- IMO. > > That is strictly your opinion. === If you meant that my opinion does not reflect things as they are, here's a small sample: Gaudapada does not know dvaita of Sri Madhva; for obvious reason; the latter is chronologically later! Let's say that Gaudapada anticipated and answered the criticisms; that too is not possible. He (and many later advaitins too, even now) do not know the concept of sAkshi or visheSha or bheda as explained by Sri Madhva. They criticize the nyAya view and assume all dualistic theories to be critiqued. How about Vivekananda? I have read his books to some extent and was able to spot two factual errors he does against dvaita school: (i) explanation of a certain sUtra by Sri Madhva. V gives the incomplete view and (ii) why dvaitins are vegetarians. Vivekananda claims that dvaitins claim that they do not want to harm animals. That is wrong; cf the explanation of sUtra: ashuddhamiti chenna shabdAt.h for the reason why dvaitins (actually vedantins in this matter) are vegetarian. The reason given by Vivekananda is a jaina position severely attacked in some dvaita works. The general impression that dvaita is one of the steps on the ladder can also be attributed to him. Atleast he has popularized it. That also shows that He is unaware of dvaita literature: mAyAvAda khaNDana, prapancha-mithyatva-anumAna-khaNDana, upAdhi-khaNDana, bhedojjIvana. The list goes on and on. Anybody who reads dvaita literature to atleast some extent will never go to advaita. Perhaps it is a step in the reverse direction! === To me, Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya must've visualized the same supreme divinity and must've attained exactly the same aatma jnaana, though the message, when expressed in a language in a systematic manner, came out differently. === Needless to say, your opinion is yours. It strikes me as odd that none of these authors ever claim their doctrines to be the result of certain experiences. They all claim their doctrine to the purport of shruti, which should be easy to verify. ==== > > Shiva is one of the 11 Rudras. However, when the word 'Rudra' is > > used without an adjective, it is only the pradhAna-rudra that is > > meant and not others. This is a > > Do you have a quote from srutis that establishes Shiva as one of the Rudras? > > The eleven Rudras are > > Kapali, Pingala, Bhima, Virupaksha, Vilohita, Sasta, Ajapada, Ahirbudhnya, Sambhu, Chanda and Bhava. > > Which one is Shiva out of them? I thought they all embody various aspects of Shiva tattva and none of them is a complete embodiment of > Shiva. > > Until this is established, the rest of your arguments don't hold water. You have only given very indirect hints and not any direct proofs. ==== Since (i) namakam-chamakaM refers to Rudra and as umApati and (ii) Lord Krishna says that, of the Rudras, Shiva is the excellent (Shiva and Shankara mean the same, etymologically), Shiva must be one of the Rudras. I don't know which name maps to Shiva. On the strength of Ahirbuddhnya samhitA, a pancharAtric text, Ahirbuddhnya seems to be 'Shiva' the husband of Uma. In any case, what is the source of those names? Can you give me the proof that none of them embody Shiva completely? (Not from any astrological text, please) You are finding these arguments indirect because you are distinguishing between Shiva and Rudra. That is against Shruti. Mahanarayana upanishad, in the process of praising umApati, praises him as Rudra also. The namakaM also does not discriminate. So, you need to provide a shruti that supports your contention. Then there is some case for your point. == Well, the purana refers to Sankara, but does the sruti too refer to him? === The Vedas should not be interpreted without the aid of purANas. Recall Mahabharata saying: itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedamsamupabR^imhayet | If any purANa said that it was not Shiva/Shankara but some other Rudra who was beheaded, then there is some case. OTOH, kUrma purANa affirms my position. === Well, if you consider Vishnu to be Parabrahman, the above is true. Is that definition (husband of Lakshmi, being in the ocean etc etc) the only "limiting" definition of Parabrahman? Are is it only a partial definition? Do you have a proof that that is the entire definition of Parabrahman? === This is not the _definition_ of Parabrahman. But that characteristic sets out Parabrahman from everything else that is not parabrahman. > > It also shows that Lakshmi is NOT parabrahman; so the direct meaning > > of 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' does not apply! > > So, what do you propose that "sarvam khalvidam brahma" means? There is a pANini rule that says that first vibhakti can be used to signify any of the other 7 vibhaktis (don't remember it as of now). Using that rule, idaM sarvaM khalu brahmaNi (stithaM) idaM sarvaM khalu brahmaNaH (shatkyA vartate) idaM sarvaM khalu brahmaNaH (utpannaM) idaM sarvaM khalu brahmaNA (preritaM) === > > Some more points to note: Nearly every devata (even > > their vehicles at times) are praised as Brahma in this passage. But > > the phrase 'yo deveshvadhi deva eka' clearly says it is ONLY one who > > is the greatest of them all. If all of them were actually one or > > OK. So? Who is that highest deva? And, what is the proof? === Vishnu. Proof= 'yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti', 'mama yoniH apsu antaH samudre', 'Apo nArA iti proktA...', 'nAmAni sarvANi yamAvishanti', 'ajasyA nAbhau..' 'yo devAnAM namadhA eka eva' ityAdi shrutismR^itbhyAM viShNur hi brahma iti siddhate | A supplementary proof: the daivI mImAmsasUtra (considered the logical precursor for brahmasUtras) ends with these two sUtras: 'sa brahma ityAchaxate' and concludes 'sa viShNurAha hi'. === Could it just be Brahman and could she represent the prakriti of this universe? === Precisely my point. Being on Ocean = Brahman = Husband of Lakshmi. All that point to Vishnu only. == Is it really an "exclusive characteristic"? Is it a characteristic or a an allegory? Can the verse in question be interpreted differently? Is the conclusion that it is Vishnu absolute and unquestionable? == Exclusive in the sense that it distinguishes others (who are also mentioned in the same sequence) from Brahman and vice-versa. It is a characteristic. The word 'nArAyaNa' has an etymological base in the idea that He rests on Ocean. The word 'viShNu' and 'brahman' are etymological equivalents. It is absolute and unquestionable; as long as the question has a basis in shruti (I know how one shruti can _seem_ to upset this thesis but careful analysis will clear it). If the questions have a basis outside shruti, then it is a tough game :-) ==== I'll just leave on the following note: In Maharshi Valmiki's Ramayanam, Sage Agastya comes to Lord Rama and teaches him Aditya Hridayam, which praises Sun. One of the lines therein says "brahmes'AnAcyutes'Aya sUryAyAdityavarcase" It praises Surya (Sun) as the lord of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. If you ask me to get a similar quote from sruti, I may not be able to get one. But, if you accept for a moment that Sage Valmiki and Sage Agastya were more advanced in their knowledge of sruti than any of us and would not violate srutis, then you have to think why Sun was praised as the lord of Trimurtis. ==== I have no questions about Valmiki being more proficient than any of us at shrutis, but it still behooves one to check the veracity of their statement. In fact, there is enough reason to doubt if Valmiki actually said such a thing. Last time I heard it was 217 versions of Ramayana; there were a good chunk of them that claimed to be Valmiki Ramayana. Have you gone through the commentaries on VR? Do you know that there is a huge debate on what Rama's age was when he married Sita or went to exile? They all originate from Valmiki's statements only. Let me know if you are interested in details. There are many such details. In one place, Rama is said to be Vishnu Himself, Vishnu is said to be sarvajna, yet Rama says that He did not know Himself. Not that Valmiki's expertise should be disregarded, but one has to verify everything is my policy. That way, it is easy to check that it is only Sri Madhvacharya who sticks to pramANAs before commenting on anything. Take any of the prasthAna-trayI texts, the sum total of his own lines will be less than the no. of lines of pramANAs given. On the other hand, Shankara or Ramanuja write a preface putting out their stand and substantiate to their verses, here and there, with pramANas. I have also checked the veracity of Sri Madhva's pramANas to the extent possible, believe me if you can -- does the context allow it, why can't it be interpreted in some other way, why should this interpretation absolutely necessary -- and found that while he holds up to all such verifications, others fail. And miserably at times. His ability to take on the polemical difficulties can only be read; there is no beating around the bush; there is no self-imposed opinion on the shruti. ==== Without any doubt, this was the most instructive, scholarly and cordial debate I had on this list in a long time. It was a great pleasure. Thank you for making me think. ==== Not a formal reciprocation, but I sincerely feel the same that you did. === I learnt a lot from your arguments and bow the scholar in you. === Speaking of scholarship, I want to point out that knowledge is different from information. Knowledge still evades me. The definition of Pandita, muni in the gItA clearly show us what we are (atleast me). A friend elsewhere pointed out to these verses in the vyAsa-smriti ; hope you enjoy: na raNe vijayAchchhUro adhyayanAnnacha paNDitaH | na vaktA vAkpaTutvena na dAtA chArthadAnataH || indriyANAM jaye shUro dharmaM charati paNDitaH | hitapriyoktibhirvaktA dAtA sammAnadAnataH || Regards, Nomadeva 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.