Apa/Nara - Primordial waters/occean

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkittaraman ji,

That was a beutiful, informative mail. Thanks.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

, Venkataraman Hari

<venkataraman_hari wrote:

 

> Dear Seenadhji,

> Namaskaram. Your are obsalutely correct that Apa: is

not mere water.Apa: is also not equilent to Jala or Naara.But in this

sloka. in this particular referance the Narayana sabda, the world

Naara refers only to Apa in its full sense.i.e. Apo va idagum Sarvam,

Apa: plunanthu Prithvi, Vishva Bhootani Apa:, Prano va Apa: The

inherant power in the water which is one in Pancha Bhootas. Who

sleeps on the water is not somebody sleepin over it :but the inherent

power or Divinity in it. Apo vai sarva Devata: All the Devatas are

in the water.It is a consolidated force capable of Creation,

Sustinance and destruction. When we worshipl water in pot in our

vaidic poojas who ever may be the deity we proficiate the potential

Primordial power/ Divinity is worshiped in that form and name. The

same is with Agni also. That is why the Veda says " YoApam Pushpam

Veda pushpavan Prajavan Pasuman Bhavati " One who realises that

the water is the cretive energy-primordial force for

> creation then he becomes the person of blossemed or realised, man

attainments, man of prosperity i.e. contentment. Primordial Ocean,

the Milky Ocean represents Suddha Sathva Energy. Puranas gives the

entire thing in a beautiful descrilption Sriman Narayan with Mother

Lakshmi,daughter o;f the ocean, sleeps on Adi Sesha the Primordial

Prana Shakti.

> With regards,

>

Hari Venkataraman.

>

>

>

Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

> Dear Venkataraman ji,

> ==>

> " Apo Naara Iti Prokta Apovai Narasoonavah:Tayatasyayanan Poorvam

Tena Naryana Smritih: Apa means Water.

> <==

> Apa is NOT water - if it was mere water they would have used the

word 'Jala' or some other synonym for water, but will not resort to

the consistent use of the word 'Apa'. In a better way - 'Apa'

means 'Primordial ocean' or the 'stuff of primordial occean' (or call

it higgs ocean in modern terms). It is the ocean/water from which

everything sprouts - i.e. life, cosmic spears, and the universe

itself. 'Apa' and 'Nara' are interchangeable words - meaning the

same, pointing to the same 'primordial occean'.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> , Venkataraman Hari

<venkataraman_hari@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > You are quite correct in a way. Wben we read or try to understand

Vedic hims we should not confuse ourselves with Puranic Stores. Veda

fully speaks in a cosmic form. To understand we require an

extraordinary understanding power and unbiased views and open mind.

Where ever Narayana Sabda or the name of the Vishnu is mentioned

there the All pervading aspect of Brahman or Supreme Power is

described.Vyapakatvat Vishnu ; " Again it is said " Apo Naara Iti

Prokta Apovai Narasoonavah:Tayatasyayanan Poorvam Tena Naryana

Smritih: Apa means Water. From water every thing sprouts. Who is just

sleeping on it is Narayana. Water is energising Power-Energy.

Agnerapa: from fire the water came- says the Upanishad. But Agni

evaporate Water and Water subsides Agni. Both are the different forms

of all pervading energy. Veda says Agna Vishno Sajoshadema Vardandtu

magirah: Here Agni denotes Sri Rudra and Rudra and Vlishnu are both

identical just like two sides of a coin. Both are

> > all pervading and intruding in to every atom of this Srishti.

That is why Vishnu is considered on of the Ekadasa/Eleven forms of

Sri Rudra. and Rudra is an another aspect of All pervading Sri

Vishnu. Veda uses these names when ever and where ever these inner

aspects of these name are useful to explain things. This is very

difficult to understand and explain clearly. I fear whether I could

explain or convey what I am able to understand. When you go to

Puranas , I am not talking about Itihasas, they attribute forms and

qualities to various names in the Vedas just to make it interesting

and convey a particular ;message to common man. We should not concuss

ourselves.This is my humble opini;on. With regards.

> >

> > Hari Venkataraman

> >

> >

> >

> > dollarmoni sriram.nayak@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rashmikantji,

> >

> > Sorry for my longish mail.IMHO please desist from asking

questions

> > that have origin in veda/puranas/shastras to an astrology group.

The

> > reason I am saying that is, though study/ knowledge of puranas/

> > ithihasas do help an astrologer to decipher the hidden meanings

of

> > planetary positions, their stastric study is mostly inadequate.

The

> > replies to your mail from many is a clear indicator and I have

seen

> > this happening in all astrology groups.

> >

> > As wrong knowledge is being propogated by many, and guesses are

used

> > on stastric knowledge, I thought of just posting a couple of

> > indicators on this matter based on similar ones that have

happened

> > before.

> > All schools place Vedas above Puranas, itihAsa and other

Vedangas.

> > This is because Vedas are apaurusheya.In case of any conflict

> > between the Vedas and any other text, the former are to be taken

and

> > others,for, being paurusheya (let the author be anybody; buddha,

> > krishna, chaitanya), are to be discarded. I hope none disagrees

here.

> >

> > Vedas do talk of Vishnu's supremacy.Ofcourse, the first line from

> > Mahopanishad is there:

> > eko nArayaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nAgnIshomau neme

> > dyAvapR^ithivI | This clearly says that it is Lord Narayana who

> > existed at that point of time, when there was niether Brahma nor

> > Shiva, Agni, Chandra, these heavens and earth.

> >

> > The very appearance of other deities being praised is also not a

> > hindrance; other Gods are indeed to be worshipped for various

other

> > benefits. For example,Shiva is the abhimAni-devatA for manas

(mind);

> > unless the kind Lord of Uma showers his benefience, there is not

one

> > chance that a man will be able to convert his bitterest enemy to

his

> > best friend. However, these devatAs, be it Shiva or Indra or Agni

or

> > Pushan, are

> > all substitutes to Vishnu, who is Brahman.

> >

> > Consider this from RgVeda (7th Mandala):

> > asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH |

> > vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h ||

> >

> > This one clearly says that Rudra got his 'rudratva'

> > from Vishnu.

> > So, why not conclude that it is Narayana whose

> > different forms are Brahma, Shiva, Agni, Surya etc,

> > just like Rama and Krishna are? The reason is again in

> > the scriptures. These other Gods are said to be the control, are

> > said to be born and even die, are said to be afraid of Brahman

(R.V

> > 2.38.9, Taittiriya Upanishad 2-8). It is plain common sense that

one

> > is not afraid of oneself. It cannot be even that one form is

> > ignorant of other (how can that be, if they are all 'pUrNa'

brahman,

> > that is praised in the muNDakopanishat as 'sarvaj~naH'

omniscient?).

> > Consider kAThaka araNyaka 206. This relates to Indra beheading

> > Rudra ('etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira

> > utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h'). This appears in Taiitariya

> > Aranyaka also. All these deities are said to be under the control

of

> > ambhraNI ( Lakshmi devi) , the seer of ambhraNI sUkta (some call

it

> > devI sUkta): ahaM rudrebhir vasubhir .... yaM kAmaye taM ugraM

> > kR^iNomi taM brahmANaM taM R^iShiM taM sumedhaM.

> > Here, Lakshmi says that whomsoever she pleases, will be made

Rudra,

> > Brahma, a sage or a wiseman. She proclaims that she had given the

> > bow to Rudra to cut off one of the five heads of Brahma (for

> > chanting a Vedic verse wrongly): ahaM rudrAya dhanurAtanomi etc.

> > Later, the same lady says that thesource of her powers is the

Being

> > on the ocean (mama yoni apsu antaH samudre)

> >

> > Lakshmi is ajanma. She is a nitya chetana. Brahma is born of Lord

> > Padmanabha and saraswati is Kriti-Pradyumnas ( another form of

> > Lakshmi-Narayana)daughter and is Brahmas wife. ( referred in

puranas

> > as chaturavadana rani).

> >

> > I saw some quote from Devi Bhagavata provided in another mail.

That

> > has to be discarded as the quote goes agains vedic injunctions

and

> > is also from the " rajasa " purana as mentioned by Shri Vedavyasa

> > himself, the 'organiser of vedas "

> >

> > I trust this clarifies the " origins " of Lakshmi and Saraswati.

> >

> > regards

> > sriram nayak

> >

> > , rashmi patel

> > rashmihpatel@ wrote:

> > >

> > > PLEASE CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE PARENTS NAME OF LAXMIJI &

SARASWATIJI

> > > I HAD GUEST IN MY HOUSE FROM CALCUTTA SAYING THEY ARE DAUGHTERS

OF

> > SHIV-PARVATI, MEANING SISTERS OF GANESH & KARTIK.

> > > PLEASE TELL ME

> > >

> > > THANKS

> > > RASHMIKANT

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > jyothi_b_lakshmi jyothi_b_lakshmi@

> > >

> > > Saturday, December 8, 2007 7:41:37 AM

> > > Re: Time - an illusion

> > >

> > > Dear Sir,

> > >

> > > I totally agree with you. Truth needs no " ism " for its

existence.

> > Be

> > > it Shavism or Vaishnavism or any other ism. Absolute reality is

> > the

> > > same in all religions, be it Islam, Hinduism or Christianity.

This

> > is

> > > a fact everybody knows. One need not be a pandit in history or

> > > scriptures to know all these. If anybody says their " ism " is

the

> > only

> > > one way to realise GOD, then they havent understood their " ism "

> > > properly.

> > >

> > > Experiencing the absolute is not a monopoly of any specific

sect.

> > If

> > > it was, we wouldnt have had so many enlightened ones in this

world

> > > that too from different religions and sects. St.Tresa of Avila,

> > > Budha, Sufi saints are all examples. Tryin