Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 --- On Thu, 11/27/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: 3. The problem with us moderners is that we demand consensus for 'reality'. Our ancients were not that particular about it because they knew they were dealing with mithyA any way. Nairji - praNAms With all due respects Nairji, I have not noticed 'us moderators demanding consensus'. The truth is absolute and does not depend any body's consensus. It is just absolute fact. Mithyaa is mithyaa only from the absolute point and it is relative reality in the relative world, where all the discussions is taking place. The problem is not consensus or lack of it but trying to account the absolute from the relative level which I call it shifting the reference. Bhakti and saadhana are in the relative plane with Krishna, who being a vaishnavate is my ishTadevata; discussion some how shifts from the level of bhakti and saadhana where duality is imminent to the absolute level. At absolute level there are no levels also and all the discussions stops. There is no lack of consensus in terms of the scope of the list serve and the therefore main emphasis of list itself. One can be sentimental when it comes to devotion but the devotion or bhakti as Shankara defines has to sublimate with the knowledge of tat tvam asi. Hence Shankara says: na yogena na saankhyena karmaNaa no na vidyayaa brahmaatmaikatva bhodena mokshaH sidhyati na anyathaa|| Liberation comes only with the knowledge of oneness of the totality as substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. Hence Bhakti - that includes Krishna bhakti - is defined by Shankara as svasvaruuapa anusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidhiiyate|| svaamaanubhava sandhaanam bhaktirityapare jaguH|| contemplation on one own self is Bhakti or realization of one own self is the supreme bhakti. Moderators' task is only to insure that the list serve serves the list within the scope defined by the list serve. When the members join the list, it scope of the list is clear or made clear. To that extent, yes there is consensus - but not in demanding consensus on 'reality'. Reality is absolute does not depend on anybody or everybody's consensus. That is advaita. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 --- On Thu, 11/27/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > Re: Who is Krishna? > advaitin > Thursday, November 27, 2008, 5:14 AM > Namaste Putran-ji. > > Your " Who is Krishna? " question is spawning a > long thread indeed! > Hare Krishna! > > Good to see that the person who raised the issue has > himself found > the answer in Bhagwan's words (Ref: your statement > quoted below). > Nairji, I was just trying to clarify how to look at Ramana's apparently contradictory statements. My answer, as I said in an earlier mail, was found in Shastriji's response itself. Bhagawan would not be interested in such a line of questioning in the first place; but it is relevant to the state of this mind -- whether some guy actually died or not, for i see a world of people; similarly whether Rama, Krishna are considered real characters of our history, since a part of me accepts an identity based on birth, that i am Hindu, belong to Shankara sampradaya, etc: so the right position of the sampradaya is something i accept as real in relation to the identity i have accepted; therefore wish to know that. thollmelukaalkizhu thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna I think you have misread Sri Nair prabhuji's comments...He is saying : 'we the moderners' and NOT to the moderators of this list...Here is the exact words of Sri Nair prabhuji for your ready reference : //quote // The problem with us moderners is that we demand consensus for 'reality'. // unquote// Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 Thanks Prabhuji for pointing this out. I am always misread! We now have another classic example of superimposition - moderators on moderners! Looks like we are all carrying big " pain-bodies " (Courtesy: Eckhart Tolle) that we feel so easily offended, slighted and criticized! Best regards. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > I think you have misread Sri Nair prabhuji's comments...He is saying : 'we > the moderners' and NOT to the moderators of this list...Here is the exact > words of Sri Nair prabhuji for your ready reference : > > //quote // > > > The problem with us moderners is that we demand consensus for 'reality'. > > > // unquote// > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > He is saying : 'we the moderners' and NOT to the moderators of > this list... >> The problem with us moderners is that we demand consensus >> for 'reality'. Hari OM! I am not sure moderners demand consensus for 'reality'. Vigorous aruguments here and hundreds of discussion groups just on seem to suggest there is hardly any consensus on any thing, let alone any 'reality'. ------ Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 praNAms Hare Krishna Hari OM! I am not sure moderners demand consensus for 'reality'. > whether the moderners demanded consensus for reality??..is the question of secondary importance & open for debate ... But in this context, Sri Sadananda prabhuji thought that it is *moderators* & drafted his reply accordingly..Hence I thought, there was a necessity to bring this to the notice of Sri Sadananda prabhuji..am I wrong prabhuji?? Vigorous aruguments here and hundreds of discussion groups just on seem to suggest there is hardly any consensus on any thing, let alone any 'reality'. > Yes, it is quite obvious that those who have demanded consensus for reality could not drag different view points to the common platform..Hence there is hell a lot of debates & deliberation still going on on reality :-)) we can demand 101 things, but there is no guarantee that it is fulfilled to the utmost satisfaction of ours..is it not prabhuji?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Thanks Prabhuji for pointing this out. I am always misread! > > We now have another classic example of superimposition - moderators > on moderners! > > Looks like we are all carrying big " pain-bodies " (Courtesy: Eckhart > Tolle) that we feel so easily offended, slighted and criticized! > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > _______________ > Namaste, i'm wondering " who, where and why " this your mentionned " big pain bodies " are " seen " .....by " whom " ?.... Regards, Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 When we talk of mithya, we don't talk of absolute truth; rather what is the relative position we wish to take. We should choose a pramana/platform, and discuss from its standpoint alone. My platform is that of the sampradaya; my conscience may not wholly agree with it, based on 'modern' education etc. But the question is not my conscience, but what does the sampradaya say? Does it accept Rama as a real historical person; does it really accept other lokas, devas, etc? Does it really say that my doing rituals is important for such and such a reason, etc? If YES, then i can accept the position as elements of my path to moksha, from the standpoint of dharma, from the standpoint of a temporarily accepted identity. It seems to freeze me in a context of ignorance, but that will be removed later, at the right time. We can also discuss the topics from the standpoint of advaita-philosophy. That gives more room to avoid these topics in our personal lives, in our paths to purification of mind. But these standpoints are not the same, so far as how these things are stressed. So if I accept allegiance to the Shankara matha's position, then I may have to bear with a greater stress than if I accept a related group like Chinmaya mission, and so on. Not a problem; no consensus required: just know what your platform is and what it is saying, then follow it with full determination, without demanding consensus from others. thollmelukaalkizhu --- On Fri, 11/28/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Re: Re: Who is Krishna? advaitin Friday, November 28, 2008, 1:55 AM > Yes, it is quite obvious that those who have demanded consensus for reality could not drag different view points to the common platform..Hence there is hell a lot of debates & deliberation still going on on reality :-)) we can demand 101 things, but there is no guarantee that it is fulfilled to the utmost satisfaction of ours..is it not prabhuji?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 --- On Fri, 11/28/08, putranm <putranm wrote: When we talk of mithyaa, we don't talk of absolute truth; rather what is the relative position we wish to take. We should choose a pramaaNa/platform, and discuss from its standpoint alone. My platform is that of the sampradaya; my conscience may not wholly agree with it, based on 'modern' education etc. But the question is not my conscience, but what does the sampradaya say? Does it accept Rama as a real historical person; does it really accept other lokas, devas, etc? Does it really say that my doing rituals is important for such and such a reason, etc? If YES, then I can accept the position as elements of my path to moksha, from the standpoint of dharma, from the standpoint of a temporarily accepted identity. It seems to freeze me in a context of ignorance, but that will be removed later, at the right time. ------------- KS PraNAms - Here is my understanding with reference to the two points you have outlined. In terms of vyavahaara - PramAnAs operate as the means of knowledge, to establish the truth relative to those that are beyond pratyaksha and anumaana. For that only shabda pramaaNa comes into operation. Historically, we have no appropriate data to establish whether Rama and Krishna were historical figures are not. I translated an article on the Historicity of Mahabharata - which was posted many years ago in this list - where the author compares the dates and astrological info given in Mahabharata for each of the happening like Krishna's birth, date of Mahabharata war (hence Gitopadesha) and matches with Julian calendar to show the exact dates. One may be able to get this post from the archives. But from the scriptural pramaaNa - the fourteen lokas, the transmigration of the soul all the way to Brahma loka based on one’s karma, and liberation by krama mukti or return back to the cycle - are all outlined. All sampradayas for it if they accept Veda pramaaNa. Krishna emphasizes that he will be born again and again every yuga to uplift the good and to punish the wicked – this is well known in Gita. Avataara concept is agreed upon by all Vedic philosophers. The answer to your first question which is within vyavahaara - avataara concept is valid and applicable across the board. The disciples of every mata feel that their teacher is avatarapurusha - It has to be, since self realization is an evolutionary process. Theosophical society formed clout around JK declaring he was going to be the coming Messiah until JK himself abolished the society that formed around him. But looking back he did behave like a messiah teaching the highest philosophy. Hence answer to your first question is - it does not depend on Shankara or Ramanuja or any other Vedic philosophy - they all accept avataara concept. From that perspective Rama, Krishna are accepted as real. -------------------- We can also discuss the topics from the standpoint of advaita-philosophy. That gives more room to avoid these topics in our personal lives, in our paths to purification of mind. But these standpoints are not the same, so far as how these things are stressed. So if I accept allegiance to the Shankara mata's position, then I may have to bear with a greater stress than if I accept a related group like Chinmaya mission, and so on. Not a problem; no consensus required: just know what your platform is and what it is saying, then follow it with full determination, without demanding consensus from others. KS From advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. Some have realized and others have yet to realize - since from the absolute point there is no creation and there is no creator. From relative point, the creation is relative and not absolute. But due to ignorance, if one not able to recognize the relative ness of the relative and take the relative as absolute, then one suffers since the nature of the relative is to change. Change involves impermanence and thus death becomes a serious problem for the one who takes himself to be relative - that is the beginning of Arjuna's viShaada. In advaita there are no differences or consensus as I have outlined before. The teaching and interpretations may differ but not from the three fundamental basic postulates - (a) Brahma satyam, (b) jagat mithyaa © jiiva is none other than Brahman. These have nothing to do with individual missions or consensus at individual level - These conclusions are again based on Shruti pramaaNa only. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 28, 2008 Sadaji, Of course, there is no difference in the fundamentals. I only said that the difference may exist in how different advaita organizations " stress " these things to their followers. Which is what you have said " The teaching and interpretations may differ " at the relative level. As for this statement " From advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. " That is what I was suggesting as motivation for the first line of my second para. It can make sense but can also lead to the different interpretations/stress and confusion. It also beckons the question " Who is Krishna? " again, since his story also says that Lord Vishnu incarnated as Krishna, after appearing in a dream to Devaki, etc. The sukshma sharira is relative, but when that is where the discussion is, it makes no sense to say that Krishna is same as me, except for realization. There are other relative-levels at which He may differ from me, which also includes the fact that Lord Vishnu deliberated His birth as Krishna. The shariras that are identified as/in Vishnu (and Krishna) are themselves mithya, but in our discussion, it is different from others like my sthula sharira is different from a monkey's. No doubt, monkey and me are also avatara-purushas, but it is not just realization that separates us: in vyavaharika, we are just plain different; my mental capacity (and its physical capacity) is far greater. We are to be classified as different species outright, and our oneness seen at a different level of being mammals, etc. So Rama and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu, and outright different from me; they identify themselves as Ishvara - the controller of all Maya: this is the position. But in the journey of time, the sharira-association that is saying " me " may reach/evolve to that position of Brahma, Vishnu etc. and incarnate as Krishna. Is this way off track? thollmelukaalkizhu --- On Fri, 11/28/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: Who is Krishna? advaitin Friday, November 28, 2008, 9:53 AM KS From advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. Some have realized and others have yet to realize - since from the absolute point there is no creation and there is no creator. From relative point, the creation is relative and not absolute. But due to ignorance, if one not able to recognize the relative ness of the relative and take the relative as absolute, then one suffers since the nature of the relative is to change. Change involves impermanence and thus death becomes a serious problem for the one who takes himself to be relative - that is the beginning of Arjuna's viShaada. In advaita there are no differences or consensus as I have outlined before. The teaching and interpretations may differ but not from the three fundamental basic postulates - (a) Brahma satyam, (b) jagat mithyaa © jiiva is none other than Brahman. These have nothing to do with individual missions or consensus at individual level - These conclusions are again based on Shruti pramaaNa only. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 29, 2008 [i am sending this reply again since I sent it last morning and never received it back, though it appeared on the web. Not sure if its general problem or just my email.] Sadaji, Of course, there is no difference in the fundamentals. I only said that the difference may exist in how different advaita organizations "stress" these things to their followers. Which is what you have said "The teaching and interpretations may differ" at the relative level. As for this statement "From advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only." That is what I was suggesting as motivation for the first line of my second para. It can make sense but can also lead to the different interpretations/stress and confusion. It also beckons the question "Who is Krishna?" again, since his story also says that Lord Vishnu incarnated as Krishna, after appearing in a dream to Devaki, etc. The sukshma sharira is relative, but when that is where the discussion is, it makes no sense to say that Krishna is same as me, except for realization. There are other relative-levels at which He may differ from me, which also includes the fact that Lord Vishnu deliberated His birth as Krishna. The shariras that are identified as/in Vishnu (and Krishna) are themselves mithya, but in our discussion, it is different from others like my sthula sharira is different from a monkey's. No doubt, monkey and me are also avatara-purushas, but it is notjust realization that separates us: in vyavaharika, we are just plain different; my mental capacity (and its physical capacity) is far greater. We are to be classified as different species outright, and our oneness seen at a different level of being mammals, etc. So Rama and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu, and outright different from me; they identify themselves as Ishvara - the controller of all Maya: this is the position. But in the journey of time, the sharira-association that is saying "me" may reach/evolve to that position of Brahma, Vishnu etc. and incarnate as Krishna. Is this way off track?thollmelukaalkizhu--- On Fri, 11/28/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisadaRe: Re: Who is Krishna?advaitin Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 9:53 AMKSFrom advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. Some have realized and others have yet to realize - since from the absolute point there is no creation and there is no creator. From relative point, the creation is relative and not absolute. But due to ignorance, if one not able to recognize the relative ness of the relative and take the relative as absolute, then one suffers since the nature of the relative is to change. Change involves impermanence and thus death becomes a serious problem for the one who takes himself to be relative - that is the beginning of Arjuna's viShaada. In advaita there are no differences or consensus as I have outlined before. The teaching and interpretations may differ but not from the three fundamental basic postulates - (a) Brahma satyam, (b) jagat mithyaa © jiiva is none other than Brahman.These have nothing to do with individual missions or consensus at individual level - These conclusions are again based on Shruti pramaaNa only.--- On Fri, 11/28/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisadaRe: Re: Who is Krishna?advaitin Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 9:53 AM --- On Fri, 11/28/08, putranm <putranm > wrote:When we talk of mithyaa, we don't talk of absolute truth; rather what is the relative position we wish to take. We should choose a pramaaNa/platform, and discuss from its standpoint alone. My platform is that of the sampradaya; my conscience may not wholly agree with it, based on 'modern' education etc. But the question is not my conscience, but what does the sampradaya say? Does it accept Rama as a real historical person; does it really accept other lokas, devas, etc? Does it really say that my doing rituals is important for such and such a reason, etc? If YES, then I can accept the position as elements of my path to moksha, from the standpoint of dharma, from the standpoint of a temporarily accepted identity. It seems to freeze me in a context of ignorance, but that will be removed later, at the right time.------------ -KSPraNAms - Here is my understanding with reference to the two points you have outlined.In terms of vyavahaara - PramAnAs operate as the means of knowledge, to establish the truth relative to those that are beyond pratyaksha and anumaana. For that only shabda pramaaNa comes into operation. Historically, we have no appropriate data to establish whether Rama and Krishna were historical figures are not. I translated an article on the Historicity of Mahabharata - which was posted many years ago in this list - where the author compares the dates and astrological info given in Mahabharata for each of the happening like Krishna's birth, date of Mahabharata war (hence Gitopadesha) and matches with Julian calendar to show the exact dates. One may be able to get this post from the archives. But from the scriptural pramaaNa - the fourteen lokas, the transmigration of the soul all the way to Brahma loka based on one’s karma, and liberation by krama mukti or return back to the cycle - are all outlined. All sampradayas for it if they acceptVeda pramaaNa. Krishna emphasizes that he will be born again and again every yuga to uplift the good and to punish the wicked – this is well known in Gita. Avataara concept is agreed upon by all Vedic philosophers. The answer to your first question which is within vyavahaara - avataara concept is valid and applicable across the board. The disciples of every mata feel that their teacher is avatarapurusha - It has to be, since self realization is an evolutionary process. Theosophical society formed clout around JK declaring he was going to be the coming Messiah until JK himself abolished the society that formed around him. But looking back he did behave like a messiah teaching the highest philosophy. Hence answer to your first question is - it does not depend on Shankara or Ramanuja or any other Vedic philosophy - they all accept avataara concept. From that perspective Rama, Krishna are accepted as real.------------ --------We can also discuss the topics from the standpoint of advaita-philosophy. That gives more room to avoid these topics in our personal lives, in our paths to purification of mind. But these standpoints are not the same, so far as how these things are stressed. So if I accept allegiance to the Shankara mata's position, then I may have to bear with a greater stress than if I accept a related group like Chinmaya mission, and so on. Not a problem; no consensus required: just know what your platform is and what it is saying, then follow it with full determination, without demanding consensus from others.KSFrom advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. Some have realized and others have yet to realize - since from the absolute point there is no creation and there is no creator. From relative point, the creation is relative and not absolute. But due to ignorance, if one not able to recognize the relative ness of the relative and take the relative as absolute, then one suffers since the nature of the relative is to change. Change involves impermanence and thus death becomes a serious problem for the one who takes himself to be relative - that is the beginning of Arjuna's viShaada. In advaita there are no differences or consensus as I have outlined before. The teaching and interpretations may differ but not from the three fundamental basic postulates - (a) Brahma satyam, (b) jagat mithyaa © jiiva is none other than Brahman.These have nothing to do with individual missions or consensus at individual level - These conclusions are again based on Shruti pramaaNa only.Hope this helps.Hari Om!Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 29, 2008 Putramji - PraNAms The difference between avataara and normal jiiva is only this - for jiiva the reason for birth is his own praarabda vaasanaas which are part of the sanchita karma but are ready to fructify in this life form. Hence BMI that is conducive to exhaust those vaasanaas will be assumed by jiiva. On the other hand for avataara there is no sanchita karma propelling the totality to take a form. What determines is samaShTi vaasanaas that demand avataara to come down to solve the problem that cannot be solved otherwise. Hence in puranaas it is always pasteurized as all the devas and Rishies and bhuudevi request Lord Narayana to come down. He says he will come down when the samaShTi vaasanaas are ready to mature. He takes the necessary form to solve a give problem or give series of problems as the need arises. Rama's birth is specific. Krishna's birth is more than just solving Kamsa's menace -He is also jagat guru - reinterpreting the Vedas for the generations to come. Hence avatara is coming down from high - in the case of jiivan mukta, he is going up to reach the top. In coming down, the avatara knows or comes to know as the situation requires, his purpose of coming down. Krishna is complete avatara of Vishnu while in the case of Rama self imposed maaya covers his knowledge that he is avatara purusha. These depend on the problem that is to be solved. One can pray the totality in any form since all forms are included in that totality - and he gets blessed in that form he worships - yo yo yam yam ... In whatever and whatever form one worships me, I bless them in that form. MuDaka Up. says about upaasana - all which is said in the Vedas are true and all upaasnaas that involves saadhana and saadhaka and the object of upaasana will fructify if the rituals are done as specified in the Vedas. Advaita follows adhyaaropa apavaada method - Invocation of the Lord in the form is required for karma yoga and upaasana. Only when the mind is mature enough, Vedanta advises to drop the form of Iswara for the mind to go beyond the form where tat tvam asi is taught. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Sat, 11/29/08, putranm <putranm wrote: As for this statement " From advaita perspective everyone is avataara puruSha only. " That is what I was suggesting as motivation for the first line of my second para. It can make sense but can also lead to the different interpretations/ stress and confusion. It also beckons the question " Who is Krishna? " again, since his story also says that Lord Vishnu incarnated as Krishna, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 29, 2008 Sadaji, 1. can you give the definition for sanchita karma as opposed to prarabdha karma? 2. samashti vasanas: is it the general burden of effects faced by people due to some cause(s), due to which an avataara happens, to resolve. 3. A normal jiva assumes what type of forms? Animals, plants and humans are evident to us. Devas/asuras? Sampradaya seems to accept such things as deva loka, etc. If such are ok, as well as yagnyas for the devas' wellbeing, then why not consider Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma as real beings? See next point. 4. " pasteurized as all the devas and Rishies and bhuudevi request Lord Narayana to come down... " : the word pasteurized suggests " given a make-believe storyline " . Do we (i.e. the sampradaya, mathas, etc.) presume that all this deva/devi/Vishnu business is really make- believe? Is it simply that the supreme being/Ishvara assumes a special form that possesses knowledge of Self and somehow, knowledge of the fact that it is avataara (with a special purpose) and not normal jiva? 5. What about special powers? An avatara like Krishna also seemed to know all the details of vyavahaarika and possess unimaginable powers. He seems to identify Himself with Ishvara and seems to wield all of nature under His control. A normal jiva does not have this aspect. A jiva (in human nama-rupa) can aspire to " reach the top " : i.e. attain knowledge of Self, but His body remains that of human with human limitations. An avataara like Krishna, in the vyavahaarika context, has further specific distinctions: a. He is not a normal- jiva by definition: avatara represents Ishvara's direct intervention. b. His birth happens with specific purpose for the totality c. His vyavahaarika knowledge can be complete; He can know everything everywhere. d. His power over maya, to control nature/maya, can be complete. In short, he can be identified as Ishvara's direct personification in a way that would not make sense with a Ramana, for instance. (Atleast so we are led to believe by considering the (interpretation of) stories of Krishna.) These four distinctions suggest that an avatara (i.e. His BMI) is fundamentaly different from jiva, even if we should negate the storylines. Since the real goal is knowlege of Self, we can de-stress the other differences; yet like my BMI vs a monkey's, they are otherwise unequatable in vyavahaarika-analysis. Is this in alignment with sampradaya's position? thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Putramji - PraNAms > > The difference between avataara and normal jiiva is only this - for jiiva the reason for birth is his own praarabda vaasanaas which are part of the sanchita karma but are ready to fructify in this life form. Hence BMI that is conducive to exhaust those vaasanaas will be assumed by jiiva. > > On the other hand for avataara there is no sanchita karma propelling the totality to take a form. > > What determines is samaShTi vaasanaas that demand avataara to come down to solve the problem that cannot be solved otherwise. Hence in puranaas it is always pasteurized as all the devas and Rishies and bhuudevi request Lord Narayana to come down. He says he will come down when the samaShTi vaasanaas are ready to mature. He takes the necessary form to solve a give problem or give series of problems as the need arises. Rama's birth is specific. Krishna's birth is more than just solving Kamsa's menace -He is also jagat guru - reinterpreting the Vedas for the generations to come. > > Hence avatara is coming down from high - in the case of jiivan mukta, he is going up to reach the top. In coming down, the avatara knows or comes to know as the situation requires, his purpose of coming down. Krishna is complete avatara of Vishnu while in the case of Rama self imposed maaya covers his knowledge that he is avatara purusha. These depend on the problem that is to be solved. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 30, 2008 Putranmji - PraNAms - here is my understanding: --- On Sat, 11/29/08, putranm <putranm wrote: 1. can you give the definition for sanchita karma as opposed to prarabdha karma? KS: Sanchita karma is the total account balance and praarabda is only that part of the total that is ready to germinate - I take birth in a conducive environment, with a body, mind and intellect determined by praarabda only so that they can be exhausted in this life. Since they are already germinated or like arrow that has been shot, they will proceed to their fulfillment. In human form - intellect is given (due to praarabda only) and man has no choice but to choose - praarabda is what I have and what I do with what I have is puruShaartha. I can choose to go against my praarabda too. Future environment is past vaasanaas modified by the present action. Since I have will to act, I create new vaasanaas which are called aagaami and which can either be exhausted in this life or get deposited to my account - sanchita karma. Just in deep sleep everything get resolved in unmanifested form - even in pralaya - all vaasanaas will resolve into unmanifest form only to be awakened with new creation. Thus blue prints for new creation are already been provided by previous creation. The cycle is eternal. ------------------ 2. SamaShti vaasanaas: is it the general burden of effects faced by people due to some cause(s), due to which an avataara happens, to resolve. KS: SamaShTi involves combined vaasanaas - When I am born, not only because of my vaasanaas but my parents and my siblings and the entire environment also. In my case my birth is dictated by not only my vaasanaas but my parents as well as my siblings and my friends and my foes, all the nine yards. Similarly at family level and village level at city level and at nation and international level - SamaShTi dictates the workings at larger levels where combined vaasanaas dictate the type of environment the combined will experience. If the humanity destroys the ecological system by polluting, naturally the humanity at large will suffer as a consequence of that. Wars and tsunamis and mass scale suffering or even elation happens due to SamaShTi vaasanaas. I remember in the Air India flight that took off from Montreal - some who are supposed to be in that flight missed the flight and some who were in the waiting list got in. The missed one felt they missed the flight while who got in felt they were lucky until of course the flight went into flames later. According to Vedanta there are no accidents but only incidents, the cause of which in these cases is determined my SamaShTi vaasanaas. Within vyavahaara cause-effect relations are exact. Avataara happens when there is general demand by the people - including prayers etc for the Lord to come down and save. If there are no petitions for Him to comedown, He will think there is no need for Him to comedown and He can continue His yoga nidra without disturbance - since He has no reason for him to comedown as He revels in himself by himself. Hence avataara does no happen unless there is SamaShTi demand based on the need. Hence avataara happens for specific purpose demanded by the situation. On the other hand if one bhakta intensely demands by his upaasana for the Lord to appear in the form that he is invoking Him, He will come down (avatarati) in the form that is invoked. In this case it is the bhakta's vaasanaas demanding the avataara. He comes to solve a local desire and then disappears having fulfilled his bhakta's demand. Viswaruupa darshanam for Arjuna also happens on request and disappears on demand or request too. Even for Krishna to serve as paarthasaarathi is because of Arjuna's request only since Lord has no desires of His own. ----------- 3. A normal jiva assumes what type of forms? Animals, plants and humans are evident to us. Devas/asuras? Sampradaya seems to accept such things as deva loka, etc. If such are ok, as well as yagnyas for the devas' wellbeing, then why not consider Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma as real beings? See next point. KS: Putranmji - they are all real with in the reality of vyavahaara. If you think you are real, then Devas/ asuraas/ gandharvaas/ Siva/Vishnu/Brahma all are as real as you are. If you think you have BMI, they have too. Vedanta never denies the reality within vyavahaara. What Vedanta says the substantive all this is sat chit ananda - that alone is satyasya satyaH - absolutely real and never negated. Praarabda vaasanaas determine the type of body the jiiva needs to exhaust the vaasanaas that are ready to germinate. Anatomical evolution is different from individual jiiva's evolution. He may take a detour to exhaust some vaasanaas and come back again to proceed further in his evolution. Of course there is an exception - once one is exposed to Vedanta (advaita Vedanta through advaitin list) the evolution is forward since the seeds for rapid evolution are sown in. Hence Krishna says in 6th ch. those who are on the path they will be born in the family conducive for their rapid growth. You can see many mahaatmaas that born and take rapid route. Here the new impressions have lot more effect than old sanchita karma. That is sanchita and praarabda have their effects but they get overpowered by the more powerful vaasanaas in terms of evolution - Hence Krishna say he is equal to all but those who come to me with devotion, I embrace them with equal force. samoham sarva bhuuteshu..... -------------------- 4. " pasteurized as all the devas and Rishies and bhuudevi request Lord Narayana to come down... " : the word pasteurized suggests " given a make-believe storyline " . Do we (i.e. the sampradaya, mathas, etc.) presume that all this deva/devi/Vishnu business is really make- believe? Is it simply that the supreme being/Ishvara assumes a special form that possesses knowledge of Self and somehow, knowledge of the fact that it is avataara (with a special purpose) and not normal jiva? KS: It is not make believe story - it is subtle aspect of the vaasanaas that are involved. All are real for those who have faith in the scriptures since these are shabda pramaaNa and cannot be established or denied by logic or pratyaksha. Patranmji - we do not understand what 'life' really means. We say we are alive because all the physiological systems are working - but they are effects not cause. What cases them to function - we do not know. Every cell in the body is alive and dynamic and work so beautifully and coherently - and we just marvel at the incredible beauty and order underlying these. We do not need beliefs here to see the working of the nature. Look at every life form - it is amazing and our intellects go blank - the power imbedded at the subatomic level to macro gigantic universe level - the order and the beauty that is revealed is unimaginable - what other proof we need to see that intelligence behind this. Vedanta captures this in essential form. ---------------- 5. What about special powers? An avataara like Krishna also seemed to know all the details of vyAvahArika and possess unimaginable powers. He seems to identify Himself with Ishvara and seems to wield all of nature under His control. A normal jiva does not have this aspect. KS: Putranmji - all powers are within creation only. The power of subatomic particle packed in small atom is still marvel and power billions of stars in galaxies are mind boggling. What powerful that mind is to create such perfect order and if it comes down with powers that is needed to solve the local problem, is there really any wonder. Our minds are limited to understand the totality of this universe itself. So called natural and unnatural are norms established by the limited mind body and intellect. From the point of total, all powers that are conceivable and inconceivable are within the creation for manifest. --------------------------- A jiva (in human nama-rupa) can aspire to " reach the top " : i.e. attain knowledge of Self, but His body remains that of human with human limitations. An avataara like Krishna, in the vyavahaarika context, has further specific distinctions: a. He is not a normal- jiva by definition: avatara represents Ishvara's direct intervention. KS: Jiiva as I mentioned is borne because of his own vaasanaas - Avataara has not vaasanaas of his own and that makes it different- Avataara means coming down. Totality will all powers embedded in the creation comes down based on what is needed for the situation. That is the declaration of Krishna That is pramaaNa- The rest is our speculation. We go by scriptures that which are beyond pratyaksha and anumaana. We do not make our own theories- as they do not form pramaaNa - that is means of knowledge. Speculation is not valid means of knowledge. ---------------- b. His birth happens with specific purpose for the totality. KS: Yes that is correct - since He has no reason to be born otherwise. --------------- c. His vyavahaarika knowledge can be complete; He can know everything everywhere. d. His power over maya, to control nature/maya, can be complete. In short, he can be identified as Ishvara's direct personification in a way that would not make sense with a Ramana, for instance. KS: We do not make rules of what He can do or cannot do - that is determined by the totality that is coming down in a form (locality) to see what powers it needs to solve the problem in hand - that is what scriptures tell us. ----------------- (At least so we are led to believe by considering the (interpretation of) stories of Krishna.) These four distinctions suggest that an avatara (i.e. His BMI) is fundamentaly different from jiva, even if we should negate the storylines. Since the real goal is knowlege of Self, we can de-stress the other differences; yet like my BMI vs a monkey's, they are otherwise unequatable in vyavahaarika- analysis. Is this in alignment with sampradaya's position? KS: In a way yes. Statement is avataara comes at Bhakta level - when he invokes the Lord in a particular form - to fulfill his desires. Or in a form to solve the problem in hand - mohini avataara is different from Krishna (who also attracts) avataara. Hope this answers all your questions. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 30, 2008 Sadaji, thanks for the excellent replies. I think that really does answer the questions in a most reasonable manner. I was expecting to trap you somewhere, but the sampradaya seems to mean what it says. thollmelukaalkizhu --- On Sat, 11/29/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Putranmji - PraNAms - here is my understanding: --- On Sat, 11/29/08, putranm <putranm > wrote: Hope this answers all your questions. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 30, 2008 Jan Nagaraja - PraNAms Thanks for your kind comments and for pointing out my incredible typographical skills! My fingers have the mind of their own. The word is supposed to be - picturised. I do not know if there is a word like that. Word spell checker might have provided it own list and I might have OKed inadvertently. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Jan Nagraj <jannagraj wrote: > > It is always a delight to read your posts and I am ever > amazed at your indefatigable spirit in answering questions > and clearing the doubts of readers. Along with several > members of the advaitin list, I remain a grateful member of > the list for your contributions. > > > ...., your stenographic skills can pose a challenge to a > reader like myself. >...... > Sadaji, you stated in the post the following: " What > determines is samaShTi vaasanaas that demand avataara to > come down to solve the problem that cannot be solved > otherwise. Hence in puranaas it is always pasteurized as all > the devas and Rishies and bhuudevi request Lord Narayana to > come down. " > > I am confused. is it possible you meant either postulated > or postured or something else?. Kindly clarify. Regards. Jan > Nagraj Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
