Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc
From the Bhakti List Archives
• April 20, 2000
Sri:
Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-
SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha
Dear SrI Narasimhan,
namO nArAyaNa.
I am not sure as to whether you have written the standpoint
of GVs, though you don't accept them OR whatever you have
written as the standpoint of GVs is also agreeable to
you. Your posting seems to validate the latter. I assume
it that way.
> reagarding the gradations of the absolute truth the
> pramana is the srimad bhagavatham verse "vadanti tat
> tattva vidah ...... brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti
> sabdyate"
>
> in this verse it is not gradation but the supreme
> lord is realised in different aspects by various
> tattva vidah. the example given is the sun seen in the
> mid noon at the zenith and the sun seen in the evening
> as a ball and ultimately entering the sun and
> realising what it is actually. all the three
> realisations are of the same object- the sun but each
> of them is different from the others.
>
> how the lord exists in all the three are already given
> in the sruti sastras. the bhagavatham only gived a
> combined statement off all the three and establishes
> that realising the supreme lord as bhagavan is the
> most perfect realisation.
This is not validated by Sruti. There is nothing called
"BhagavAn realization", "ParamAtma realization" and
"NirviSEsha Brahman realization" with BhagavAn realization
being the supreme etc. I will later explain these things
and the meaning of that SB verse.
As you have stated, according to GV, it is the
same BhagavAn who gets manifested into ParamAtma and
NirviSEsha Brahman. But, if you simulataneously say that
realization of BhagavAn is the most perfect, it
automatically incorporates a gradation in realization
of the Ultimate Reality.
Please also go through my previous posting and the
archives. No entity can be "NirviSEsha" (devoid of all
attributes). This has been well established by Bhagavad
RAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan, especially in their works
like SrI BhAshyam and SatadUshani respectively. Be it
Sruti (Sabda pramAnam), Inference Or pratyaksha, an entity
devoid of attributes can't be established. Please refer
the English books of SrI SMS Chari for a good idea of these
arguments :
1. Advaita and ViSishtAdvaita (Motilal Banarsidas)
2. Fundamentals of ViSishtAdvaita (Motilal Banarsidas)
3. Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtra (Munshiram Manohar Lal).
You can then learn the sanskrit originals for advanced
analysis.
> reg the different type of mokshas it is definitely
> offensive to gradate them. we cannot just call
> vaikuntha lower than goloka or vice versa.mukti is
> that the jivatmas are established in their
> constitutional position-their swarupa-SB- mukti hitva
> anyata rupam svarupena vyavastitih. hence mukti is to
> be situated in one's swarupa. the GV's say that our
> swarupa is as per the rasa or the mellowful realtion
> ship which we develop with the lord and say they are
> 12 in no- 5 primary and 7 secondary.among the primary
> rasas the most sweetest is the madhurya rasa.
>
> note that there is no inferiority or superiority in
> the rasas but they differ in their taste. one rasa has
> all the sweetness of the previous rasa and exceeds it
> in the sweetness.Goda devi was in the madhurya
> rasa.she sings to Sri Ranganatha not as Himself but as
> Krishna.
As said in my previous posting, there is no scriptural
authority for a jIvAtma's svaroopa being characterized
based on the rasa it experiences while in its baddha
state. All these theories are of only GVs. Brahma SUtras,
Upanishads and allied pramAnas are very clear in these
things. Please gothrough the 4th pAda of 4th adhyAya of
Brahma sUtras. There is no pramAna to hold these views
as if a mukta will be only in certain rasa with a
particular form of Lord etc. Mukta is satya sankalpa as
stated in Upanishads and Brahma sUtras and thus he is
free to enjoy the communion the way he (ie. the
jIvAtma) wants and this is bhagavad sankalpam. Anyway, I
will explain these things in the final document.
> the Topmost rasa attainable in the Service of
> SrimannNarayan is Dasya rasa - being a dasanudasan,
> and filled with awe and reverence. any other rasas are
> tasted in his other forms such as rama and krishna and
> all the rasas can be tasted in their fullness only in
> devotion to Sri Krishna paramatma. this is very
> apparent in the arulichheyal of the azhwars.
Who is then SrIman nArAyaNa according to you ?
You again have no clue of Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and
allied pramAnas, esp. the commentries by SrI VaishNava
AchAryas. Its totally untenable to state that service to
SrIman nArAyaNa is only of dAsya rasa etc.
Also, I am sure that you don't know AzhwAr's pAsurams
properly and the commentries. The rasAs are dealtwith more
elaborately in the commentries.
Please gothrough the following article to know as to what
is meant by these rasAs, as a tattva :
Its not that, Azhwars like AndAL, NammAzhwar and Thirumangai
Azhwar had mAdhurya rasa (nAyikA bhAva) with only
Lord KrishNa. They infact had with the arcA avatAra PerumALs
itself and was not restricted to Lord KrishNa.
AndAL in vAranamAyiram says that "arimugan achyutan" (Lord
Nrusimha) got hold of Her hand during Her wedding in the dream.
There are many pAsurams in nAyikA bhAvam to Lord Azhagar of
thirumAlirunchOlai, Lord SrInivAsa of thirumala, Lord RanganAtha
of SrIrangam etc by AndAL. The nAyikA bhAva is not merely
expressed for Lord KrishNa, but also to other vibhava avatArams
like Nrusimha and also to arcA avatArams. Its not that Lord
RanganAtha was considered _only_ as Lord KrishNa. Infact, in
Her ThiruppAvai, She says "nArAyaNanE namakkE paRai tharuvAn",
in the first pAsuram where she glorifies the beauty of Lord
KrishNa, establishing that it is nArAyaNa who has come as
KrishNa. Please look into the commentries.
NammAzhwAr expresses nAyikA bhAvam towards many archA avatAra
PerumALs like Lord Nambi of thirukkurungudi, Lord
AravindalOchanan at tholaivillimangalam and others. NammAzhwAr
also expresses nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma, Lord Nrusimha
etc vibhava avatArams.
Some samples :
1. In ThiruvAimozhi 5.5, all 10 pAsurams on nAyikA bhAvam to Lord
Nambi of Thirukkurungudi, by NammAzhwAr :
"Respected elders at home! Why do you all frown at me ?
Once I had seen our beautiful Nambi of thirukkurungudi, my
heart is not with me. It has gone to Him. Especially fancied
by the Sankha, Chakra, the lotus-like eyes and more
especially the red lips, most dear to me. And you were the
ones who initiated me in this field of Nambi-worship. What
is the point in you turning against me ? I can't desist
from my trance-vision of Nambi all around me" (5.5.1) "
2. ThiruvAimozhi 2.4.4 - nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma :
< This is as per the words of the mother of NammAzhwAr
who is in nAyikA bhAvam, to Lord >
"She (NammAzhwAr in nAyikA bhAvam) disagrees with me when
I found fault with You. She calls You, "You who bear the
shower of arrows on Your broad beautiful chest, just for
your seetheart! ". She appears to be in an emotional
transformation to the personality of Sita, since she
appeals to You : "You did so much then ; Crossed the sea,
fought the hundreds of rAkshasAs, obliterated Lanka ....
all this for me. Now, you can quickly come on Your
favourite Garuda, raising the Garuda-banner aloft, as You
are always used to when Your devotees seek Your help".
Saying so, she heaves a very warm sigh; her inflammed
passion is an easy incendiary to nearby greens. And she
sheds tears to exhaust the rest of her pangs. Ans she folds
her hands in supplication - she who deserves it from You -
which justly merits Your coming here immedietly with an
anjali for making amend for the delay. Please do so"
< Both trans. by SrI VN VEdAntadESIkan >
3. Thirumangai AzhwAr in ThirunedundAndakam especially
experiences nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma. This is one
of adiyEn's most favourite pAsurams : "maivaNNanarunkunjik
kuzhal pin thAzha magaram sEr ........................." (21).
adiyEn requests the devotees (like SrI MAdhavakannan) to kindly
translate this pAsuram and bringout the outstanding anubhava
of AzhwAr. It will great if someone can explain the pAsuram
based on the commentries also.
> the example given between krishna and Narayana is like
> the association of the Grandson of the supreme court
> Judge in his office and at home. the sweetness
> definitely varies though it is the same person.
Again, who is your nArAyaNa then ? Someone with
4 hands ? Thats your own mis-understanding.
Tell me as to whether a lover of a Judge won't hug
him when he is dressed as a Judge, and will only love
him when he is in his house with household dress. Similarly,
a jIvAtma can be in nAyikA bhAva (mAdhurya rasa) with any
form of Lord - be it four handed form, be it two handed form,
be it Nrusimha etc. Its all absurd to say that a jIva can only
be in nAyika bhAva with KrishNa and it is the perfect nAyikA
bhAva etc. The person being loved is Brahman and it
is He who is having the qualities. It is not the form
which is loving a jIvAtma, but only the Brahman who has
that form.
> reagarding the philosophy of AcintyabhedAbheda it is
> the only philosophy wherein all the statemnts of the
> shastars, the Bheda, the abheda and the Ghataka can be
> accepted as it is without any further interpretation.
This clearly shows that you have no clue whatsoever
of SrI BhAshya, NyAya SiddhAnjana, SarvArtha Siddhi and
other works of SrI Vaishnava AchAryas. First of all, Ghataka
Srutis emphasize the sarIra-sarIri bhAva by enlisting so many
things (fire, earth, water, aatma, .....etc). Please go
through vEdArtha Sangraha and other texts atfirst and
understand the concept before making such statements.
You then write as to what you find unsatisfactory with the
bhAshyam of Bhagavad RAmAnuja, as if some further
interpretation has been made by Bhagavad RAmAnuja.
You also write as to what is acintya bhEda-abEdha in essence.
Explain as to why is the relationship between BhagavAn and
cit+achit is acintya ie. unexplainable. Don't simply say that
BhagavAn is Sat,chit and aananda ; JIvAtma is also Sat,chit
and aananda, and thus both are same in this aspect and this
is the purport of abhEda Srutis. It will be a very childish
interpretation of abhEda Srutis. It has nothing to do with the
abhEda Srutis (Also, go through various adhikaraNas in Brahma
sUtras which deal with abhEda Srutis). Even if you say that
both BhagavAn and jIvAtma are Sat+chit+aananda, there is
nothing "acintya" in this. Explain as to what is the import of
bhEda Srutis, abhEda Srutis and ghataka Srutis. First of all,
its only Bhagavad RAmAnuja who gives the terminology called
Ghataka Srutis to AntaryAmi BrAhmana in Upanishads. Also go
through the commentries on the Upanishads for further
understanding.
> every philosophy has to be established on the basis of
> the shastras else it becomes simple speculation. this
> philosophy of AcintyabhedadAbheda has been established
> on the basis of taechings of Lord Chaitanya who is
> glorified as the Yuga avatara of Krishna by SB and
> various other Sastras. in his teachings all the
> different forms of the lord and the different lokas
> canbe found.
Again, you are advocating some sectarian views, which has
no pramAna from SAstras. You have no idea of the commentries
by SrI VaishNava AchAryas and don't write as if you know its
purport.
The SB verse you are referring to is in noway referring to
SrI KrishNa Chaitanya :
"krushNa varNam tvishAkrushNam sAn~gO ....." (11.5.32)
The context is the explanation of various forms and colours
of those forms of Lord and the way devotees will worship
such Lord, in each of the 4 yugAs. It has nothing to do
with a descent of Lord to earth. This verse is about the
description of the Lord, people will worship in Kali Yuga.
The form of the Lord is described as "krushNa varNam
tvishAkrushNam". In the previous yugAs, the colour of the
Lord was described as "Sukla" (white), "rakta varNa" (Red),
SyAmaha (blackish blue) respectively. For kali yugA, the
color is "KrushNa varNam". varNam means "colour" and krushNa
means "blackish". Thus, the colour is black. tvishA implies
"shinning" and krushNam implies balck. Thus the implication
is the shinning blackish colour. This is also glorified by
AzhwArs as maNivaNNan, karu mAnikkam etc. Please refer to
the third pAsuram of ThirunedundAntakam of Thirumangai AzhwAr
for the explanation of various colours of the forms of Lord
in various yugAs. adiyEn again requests a devotee to post on
this verse too.
SrI A.C.BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi has interpretted tvishAkrishNam
as tvishA akrushNam ie. shinning non-black, and equates it
to golden colour. It makes no correlation here as to how come
non-black will give golden colour. Also, Bhagavad RAmAnuja
was also golden in complexion and thus by this interpretation,
SrI Vaishnavas can also claim that kali yuga people should
especially worship Bhagavad RAmAnuja. Added to this is another
misinterpretation of the word varNam. SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta swAmi
translates krushNa-varNam into "Reciting the syllables of
krushNa". No sanskrit grammarian can accept such translation.
varNam means only "a letter ie.Syllable". "KrushNa" is a word
and not a letter.
Anyway, the bottomline is that its only sectarian sentimentalism
to claim as if SrI KrishNa Chaitanya is the Lord to be
worshipped in Kali Yuga etc. It has got no valid scriptural
authority. The SB verse doesn't advocate these theories.
In that verse, the kali yuga people is said to worship the
Lord through SankIrtana. Then, obeisances and glories to Lord
in general is made in the next few verses. It is followed by
the verse quoted by me in the previous posting :
"krutAdishu prajA rAjan kalAvicchanti sambhavam
kalu khalu bhavishyanti nArAyaNa parAyanAha
kvacit kvacin ................................" (11.5.38-40),
wherein it is clearly stated that the devotees who will
be born (Or taking avatAra) at the banks of rivers like
tAmraparaNi etc in South India are going to make such an
impact that even the people of Kruta yuga will be willing
to take birth in this kali yuga .............
This makes pointed reference to AzhwArs and SrI VaishNava
AchAryas and the sankIrtanam referred to in the verse 11.5.32,
which is said to be used for worshipping Lord in kali yuga
is nothing but the Divya Prabandhams of AzhwArs and Stotras +
prabandhams of SrI VaishNava AchAryas. This is very much
evident from these SB verses.
> Reg the Verse Ete camsa kalah..... Sriman Harikrisha
> has alreday answered your questions. in addition Sri
> Jiva Goswami establishes the Statement *Krishnas tu
> Bhagavan svayam* as a sutra called paribhasa sutra- a
> sutra which doesnot require any explanation or
> interpretation and is whole in itself. this he does in
> his Krishna sandharbha on the basis of smrtis and
> nyaya.
SrI HarikrishNa has not answered back appropriately
regarding this verse. It were only due to the misunderstanding
of the terminologies, sanskrit and other pramAnas etc. I have
gone through that work of SrI JIva GOswAmi once. I don't have it
with me now. First of all, no SrI VaishNava is objecting the fact
that Lord KrishNa is BhagavAn Himself. The verse can't be used
to support the theory of GVs. I would like to see the
KrishNa Sandarbha again. No authoritative smrutis accepted
by vEdantins esp. ViSishtAdvaitins has such information as
advocated by SrI JIva gOswAmi. I would write later on this
if I get a copy of the translation of KrushNa Sandarbha.
Such independent theories are only sectarian in nature.
> similarly thouggh the Bhagavatham talks of various
> avataras, it talks in every word only about Sri
> Krishna who is the only subject matter( Padma Purana)
So what ?
>
> Reg the position of Piratti in Srimad Bhagavatham, it
> is said in the Dasama skandam by the gopikas prior ras
> krida that *even sridevi who is situauted in your
> thiru vakshastalam is yearning for the dust of your
> lotus feet which she has to share with tulasi devi
> and others*. i only expanded on this verse that though
> situated in the vakshasthalam Sridevi yearns for
> something which others are already possessing.
This has nothing to do with the extrapolation that
pirAtti will not get the anubhava of rAsa krIda etc.
This verse simply explains as to how pirAtti shows
Her love to Lord by way of Her service to Him / yearning
for His service. A wife certainly has that quality
exhibited towards Her husband and thats what is portrayed
in this verse.
> finally , the lives of the Acharyas were as totally
> directed by the lord. certain things have to be taken
> as Lila of the Lord only viz. Udayavar unable to
> establish pancharatra worship in Thiruananthapuram
> etc. it is only divine will. we being the
> infinitismally small jivas try to explain everything
> within the purview of our logic. but it has its limit.
>
> Why Sri Bhasyakarar did not refer to SB is only known
> to him and the lord. we can only try to give various
> reasons to satisfy ourselves because we are strictly
> bound by logic.
>
> it is where this logic ends that what is called as
> acintya begins.
It has nothing to do with what we are discussing at
present. Don't be dogmatic that Bhagavad RAmAnuja's
philosophy is incomplete and ends in a logical level,
while SrI Chaitanya explains the acintya level etc.
Speak on the authority of SAstras.
There is also one most barbaric and uncivilized rumour
spread by GVs as if SrI Chaitanya instructed Bhagavad
RAmAnuja to teach only dAsya rasa and principles of
SrI Vaishnavism and reserve the mAdhurya rasa part to
him and blessed Bhagavad RAmAnuja by putting his (SrI
Chaitanya's) feet over his head etc. Its all sectarian
fanaticism and these amount to very high degrees of
bhAgavatha apachAram. Not only bhagavad RAmAnuja, but
other VaishNava AchAryas are also not spared off. Many
imaginative stories are fabricated by GVs as if SrI
Chaitanya has blessed SrI MadhvAchArya, SrI NimbarkAchArya
etc and instructed them to teach certain things etc.
All these things are totally rubbish and are products of
pure fanaticism and cheating the people around by mere
sentiments and emotional stories.
Even if this rumour is taken to be true, its hardly true
that Bhagavad RAmAnuja only explained dAsya rasa to his
disciples. Many pAsurams of AzhwArs are in nAyikA bhAvam
and it has been well exaplined by Bhagavad RAmAnuja and
commentries does have the record of his certain
interpretations.
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
anantapadmanAbhan.
krishNArpaNam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy the award-winning journalism of The New York Times with
convenient home delivery. And for a limited time, get 50% off for the
first 8 weeks by subscribing. Pay by credit card and receive an
additional 4 weeks at this low introductory rate.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3102/2/_/716111/_/956260251/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@eGroups.com
Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
- Next message: Kasturi Varadarajan: "Chaagapasunyaaya -- Q & A"
- Previous message: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: krushNAstu bhagavAn swayam"
- In reply to: ranganathan narasimhan: "Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]