In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions

From the Bhakti List Archives

Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy • April 20, 2000

Dear Vaishnavas,

Hare Krishna.
Please accept my humble obeisances.

Having read the various postings on the srimad bhagavatam and Gaudiya
Vaishnava siddhanta vis-a-vis visishtadvaita, I would like  to humbly state
that the whole matter has been totally misunderstood by the writers. Gaudiya
Vaishnava theology and the concept of achintya bheda-abheda is much deeper
than as presented or projected by the writers of the articles. Their
postulations as to what constitutes the Gaudiya position on Vishnu and
Krishna are also not all that correct. It is only half the story heard and
even that not from the lips or the pen of a Gaudiya Vaishnava but an
external discourse. In fact, the way the presentation has been written is
very superficial and appears to be half-truth at best of the actual Gaudiya
Vaishnava conclusion. To explain these concepts on a posting list would not
be totally feasible nor practical because these like any other esoteric
aspect of siddhanta can only be understood from a serious Gaudiya Vaishnava
sadhaka.

This list is essentially for Sri Vaishnava siddhanta, visishadvaita. As
such, I shan't post elaborate materials on Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. Anyone
writing in the future on inter-vaishnava discussions could do so on another
list meant for that purpose or write to a Gaudiya forum.

The superiority of Lord Krishna's form when compared with His other features
is not so much related to Vishnu tattva and serious differences amongst the
forms. It is more related to rasa-tattva as elaborated by the sad-goswamis
of Sri Vrndavana, the direct disciples of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. amongst
whom appears Srila Gopal Bhatta Goswami, who originally hails from Srirangam
and was the son of Sri Vyenkata Bhattar.

By stating that it is only out of extreme love of Lord Krishna that we see
other forms as inferior, the writer has indirectly thrust the allegation of
sentiment without siddhanta upon the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. As a Gaudiya
Vaishnava, I wish to add that we are not such fools as to do that. As
explained earlier, the superiority is related to rasa-tattva which forms a
very esoteric and sublime part of the Vedas, something that even the other
sampradayas have not touched upon in as much detail as the Gaudiya Vaishnava
Acharyas, especially in terms of the sweetness of parakiya rasa or unwedded
paramourship as displayed in Radha-Krishna lila.

Only in terms of the rasa is the form of Lord Krishna seen as more complete
in terms of the Lord's manifesting the rasas in full. All the forms are
complete. It is only a question of complete and more complete. never the
case of deficiency. That does not make the other forms inferior. This is
also the Gaudiya point of view. The Gaudiyas also agree that all forms of
the Lord are similar in prowess and in all other opulences. That is not
denied.

Yes, the Lord has unlimited qualities. That is also admitted. What Srila
Rupa Goswami enumerates as the 64 qualities of the Lord are the principle
qualities, the pradhana kalyana gunas. Just as Parasara Muni defines
Bhagavan as one endowed with the 6 principle qualities in full in the Vishnu
Purana, so also as Srila Rupa Goswami highlighted 64 principle features.
That does not in any way refute the fact that the Lord's qualities are ever
expansive. As Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj states in his Sri Chaitanya
Charitamrta, even Anantasesha despite glorifying the Lord with his many
millions of mouths, is still unable to find the end. So there is no
contradiction here.

When it is stated that Lord Krishna is the original, it does not resemble
the term "original" in terms of material calculation. It is much more than
even subtle spiritual science. Just like in the case of pramanas which was
brought up sometime ago. Pratyaksha pramana as Sripad Ramanujacarya or any
other Vedic authority views it, should not be made a slave of our own
sensory perceptions. Those grilled in Vedic understanding, even in terms of
their pratyaksha experience, view the most mundane objects through shastra.
Therefore, they are known as shastra-chakshu, i.e. those who see things
through the eyes of shastra. As such, even the term "pratyaksha" and
"anumana" as viewed by the Acharyas may not be narrow and akin to the modern
day understandings of our paltry senses and mind. This being the case, what
then are we to speak of their powerful understandings related to anumana and
shabda.

Essentially, we are like the dwarfs seeking to catch the moon. In that
process, we should be careful not to bring the moon to the height of the
dwarf. That would be impractical foolishness and disrespect at their best.

Similarly, the term "original" or "svayam" is not to be mixed up with some
material causative principle related to gross science. It is a different
subject matter altogether and if one wants to actually understand the
Gaudiya understanding of the word "svayam", then one should approach a
Gaudiya sadhaka and seek clarification, not ask for wheat in the shop of a
rice-seller. (i.e. - not ask another sampradayic follower for clarification,
prior to asking the original propounder or his followers and practitioners)


Your servant,
R. Jai Simman
Singapore

-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Digest Number 16


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/_/956224592/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>            - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
> To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
> Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 17 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Question from Sripathy
>            From: lakshminarayanan ramasubramanian 
>       2. Re: [pancharatra and vaikhanasa ]
>            From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>       3. Re: [pancharatra and vaikhanasa ]
>            From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>       4. Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc
>            From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>       5. Re: A Question
>            From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>       6. krushNAstu bhagavAn swayam
>            From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>       7. ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>            From: Sadagopan 
>       8. RE: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>            From: "Gunaseelan Venkatachary" 
>       9. Re: [Question from Sripathy ]
>            From: M.S.HARI (Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari) 
>      10. Fund Raising (pledges) completed for  the Two Kaimkaryams: (1)
Sri RaamAnujA's new ThridhaNdam at SriperumbhUdhUr(2)The CD ROM on the Life
and works of  the 12 AzhwArs and the 108 dhivya dEsams that they sung about
.
>            From: Sadagopan 
>      11. RE: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>            From: Sadagopan 
>      12. THIRUNINRAVUR
>            From: "Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri" 
>      13. Unsubsribe
>            From: "Sridharaan, Viji (CTS)" 
>      14. vibhava lOkAs
>            From: Kasturi Varadarajan 
>      15. Re: krushNAstu bhagavAn swayam
>            From: "S. HariKrishna" 
>      16. Real and unreal
>            From: bindinganavale suresh 
>      17. Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc
>            From: ranganathan narasimhan 
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: lakshminarayanan ramasubramanian 
> Subject: Question from Sripathy
>
> Dear bhagavathas
> My question is Lord krishna revealed all the 64
> qualities which a supreme personality of godhead
> possess.But in all the other avathars he didnt reveal
> all his qualities.Does this mean during other avathars
> he didnt not possess it or he din't reveal
> it.(Especially during rama avathara where he took a
> human birth and livrd with manushya sharira)
> Sripathy
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:31:00 +0530
>    From: Anand Karalapakkam 
> Subject: Re: [pancharatra and vaikhanasa ]
>
> SrI:
> SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
> SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -
> SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha
>
>  Dear SrI Narasimhan,
>  namO nArAyaNa.
>
>
>  SrI Hari wrote :
> >Of course
> > few Aacharyas have converted few temple rituals to Paancharaatra
> > which is more popular and celebrated in Brahma Sutra.
>
>   A small addition :
>
>   Sage VyAsa didn't enquire about VaikhAnasa Agamas in the
>   Brahma sUtras because it was extremly clear that it was
>   faithful to VEdas. But, pAncarAtra has some apparent
>   contradictions with vEdas and that problem was needed to be
>   sorted out and thus Sage VyAsa made an enquiry into it.
>   Though Sage VyAsa declared it to be an authoritative text,
>   some have mis-interpreted it to be un-authoritative.
>
>   adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
>   anantapadmanAbhan
>   krishNArpaNam.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:32:19 +0530
>    From: Anand Karalapakkam 
> Subject: Re: [pancharatra and vaikhanasa ]
>
> SrI:
> SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
> SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -
> SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha
>
>  Dear SrI Hari,
>  namO nArAyaNa.
>
>   Sorry for sending the unfinished mail earlier by mistake.
>
>  SrI Hari wrote :
> >Of course
> > few Aacharyas have converted few temple rituals to Paancharaatra
> > which is more popular and celebrated in Brahma Sutra.
>
>   A small note as adiyEn heard during kAlakshEbam :
>
>   Sage VyAsa didn't enquire about VaikhAnasa Agamas in the
>   Brahma sUtras because it was extremly clear that it was
>   faithful to VEdas. But, pAncarAtra had some apparent
>   contradictions with vEdas (due to the lack of understanding
>   of certain passages, similar to how certain passages in
>   Upanishads were difficult to understand and hence enquiry was
>   made into those passages in Brahma sUtras) and that problem was
>   needed to be sorted out and thus Sage VyAsa made an enquiry into
>   it. Though Sage VyAsa declared it to be an authoritative text,
>   some have mis-interpreted it to be un-authoritative as you
>   know.
>
>   adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
>   anantapadmanAbhan
>   krishNArpaNam.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:43:31 +0530
>    From: Anand Karalapakkam 
> Subject: Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc
>
> SrI:
> SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
> SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -
> SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha
>
>  Dear SrI Narasimhan,
>  namO nArAyaNa.
>
>
> > 3. sri Jiva goswami of the same school in his tattav
> > sandharbha  strongly establishes the bagavatham as the
> > best of all the pramanams incl. the srutis even.
>
>   SrImad BhAgavatham as such is considered as "Sruti"
>   by some Gaudiya Vaishnava AchAryas, which can't be
>   accepted by us and other vaidikAs ie. those who follow
>   vEdas. adiyEn doesn't know as to whether SrI BaladEva,
>   who wrote a commentry for Brahma sUtras for Gaudiya
>   Vaishnavas, endorses the view that SrImad BhAgavatham is
>   a Sruti. It will then be contradictory to quote SrImad
>   BhAgavatham as a pramAna by him, in those places where sUtras
>   refer to a Smruti for further strengthening its standpoint.
>
>
> > 4. on why sri bhasyakarar did not include srimad
> > bhagavatham as one of the pramanams, a) srimad
> > bhagavatahma states that Lord Krishna to be the
> > supreme lord and not an avatara.(in the krishna
> > sandharbha this is established by jiva goswami)while
> > Sri VP states on the contrary.
>
>  SrImad BhAgavatham (SB) has nowhere contradicted VEdAnta.
>  Gaudiya Vaishnavas take the SB verse "etE .....krishNAstu
>  bhagavAn swayam" to understand as if Lord KrishNa is the
>  "original" God and four handed forms of God are only His
>   expansions. They call these four handed forms of God as
>  NArAyana.
>
>  Its only a misunderstanding of that verse by Gaudiya
>  Vaishnavas (GVs) and adiyEn has earlier posted an article on
>  this issue. adiyEn has slightly modified and edited that
>  version to be more clear. It will be sent as a separate
>  posting.
>
>  One of the difficulties in the philosophy of GVs is that,
>  they have a graded version of the Ultimate Truth viz.
>  BhagavAn, ParamAtma and NirguNa Brahman.
>
>  BhagavAn is equated with Lord KrishNa who is accalimed
>  by them as the original God, filled with all auspicious
>  qualities etc. To be more precise, some GVs also say that,
>  only that KrishNa who was at BrindAvan playing with gOpis,
>  and esp. who did rAsa krIda is the "original" God and
>  all other forms are only His expansions. For GVs, there
>  is a gradation in moksha. For them, there are many VaikuNThas
>  and one place apart from them called Goloka, all of which
>  are not in the material world. The different VaikuNThas
>  are said to be presided by various expansions of the original
>  God KrishNa, who is at Goloka. To adiyEn's understanding, they
>  also say inherent differences in the jIvAtmas. According to
>  them, certain jIvAtmas are inherently related to Original God
>  to be in "mAdhurya rasa" ie.the relationship as that of
>  gOpis who played the rAsa krIda with Lord. Some are related
>  as that of YasOda, some as that of Arjuna as a friend etc.
>  Thus, they hold difference in the vary nature of jIvAtmas itself.
>  According to them, mAdhurya rasa is experienced at Goloka and
>  thus forms the ultimate moksham. Attainment of other vaikuNThas
>  are of lower nature due to the non-availibility of this mAdhurya
>  rasa. Well, these gradation system in moksha has no scriptural
>  authority (accepted by other vEdAntins) and its their formulation
>  due to their excessive love for Lord KrishNa. There is no mention
>  of such gradations in principal Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and
>  Bhagavad gIta. Infact, there are many contradictory statements
>  to their theory.
>
>  For GVs, ParamAtma is also none other than BhagavAn, but an
>  expansion of Him, manifesting only certain qualities etc. To
>  adiyEn's understanding, they equate ParamAtma with the antaryAmi
>  form of PerumAL and also to other 4 handed forms of PerumAL.
>
>  Surprisingly, they also accept the existence of "NirguNa Brhaman"
>  as that of Sankara. But, it is equated to the effulgence coming
>  out of the divine body of BhagavAn. The effulgence spreads
>  outside of the spiritual world and those who are after nirguNa
>  Brahman (advaitins) are said to get merged into that effulgence.
>  But, this NirguNa Brahman is none other than BhagavAn for them
>  in ultimate reality, but is only an expansion of BhagavAn. This
>  gives them a very contradictory metaphysical stand since BhagavAn
>  is savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and He can't
>  simultaneously be "nirvisEsha" (without any attributes whatsoever)
>  as "NirguNa Brahman". They also say that BhagavAn and His
>  attributes are absolutely same, which is logically contradictory.
>  They get into a fix and dispose all these by saying that its
>  "acintya" ie. un-explicable. Similar to how advaitins
>  conveniently try to escape the objections by incorporating all of
>  them into the "nature of avidya", GVs incorporate the objections
>  into "acintya" (ie."Unexplicable" is the very answer, though our
>  Bhagavad RAmanuja has clearly established as to how the tattvas
>  are clearly explainable without contradictions). Bhagavad
>  RAmAnuja's establishment of the tattvAs and esp. the relationship
>  between Brahman and chit+achit, is fully grounded in Upanishads
>  themselves (ie. SarIra-SarIri bhAva and the concept of apruthak
>  siddi ie. inseparable union is verily present in Upanishads).
>  But the acintya theory of GVs is a logical deduction from the
>  metaphysical stand they hold for various tattvas and thus
>  "yukti" (logic) scores over the pramAna for them ultimately.
>
>
>  Also, none of the Brahma vidyas ( ie.upAsanAs prescribed in
>  Upanishads, which are the direct means for attaining moksha; also
>  known as bhakti yOga in Bhagavad gIta) in Upanishads has
>  instructed the meditation of Lord KrishNa who is their BhagavAn,
>  for attaining moksha. The meditation of Brahman in various Brahma
>  vidyAs of Upanishads are of the category belonging to the
>  meditaion of ParamAtma for GVs. To circumvent this problem, GVs
>  probably raised the status of SB to a parallel Sruti and thus
>  claim that meditaion on Lord KrishNa is also a direct means for
>  moksha and also that its the highest form of moksha. They say that
>  SB is also a "Sruti" and thus we can derive this information.
>  Even by accepting SB as a Sruti, they can't actually prove this
>  standpoint very authoritatively.
>
>  Considering Lord KrishNa as the "original God" is a direct
>  violation of very authoritative texts of pAncarAtra AgamAs.
>  Lakshmi Tantra (11.19-25), SAtvata Samhita (ch.9) and Ahirbudhnya
>  Samhita (5.50-57) clearly enumerate the various vibhava avatAras
>  like Lord Nrusimha, Lord vAmana, Lord RAma and others, and
>  Lord KrishNa is in this list. SrI Vaishnava AchAryas have
>  clearly made this point and that Lord KrishNa's form as
>  such is not the "para" form, and He is a vibhava avatAra only,
>  like Lord Nrusimha, Lord RAma and others.
>
>  Also, according to SAstras, those who perform upAsana (deep
>  meditation) on the vibhava forms of God will reach the vibhava
>  lOkas, which are actually inside the material world. Similarly,
>  those who meditate upon the vyUha forms of God will reach the
>  vyUha lOkas. Please refer to archives for more information on
>  this issue. Thus, meditation on Lord KrishNa (and not adopting
>  any standard upAsana prescribed in Upanishads) will make one
>  attain GOloka, which is inside the material world only. There
>  is only one spiritual world called VaikuNTha and there is no
>  gradation in moksha.
>
>  For a prapanna, it doesn't matter as to which form of God
>  ( vyUha, vibhava, arca etc) he/she worships, since the means
>  (sAdhyaupAya) of moksha is not "upAsana", but prapatti/
>  SaraNAgathi itself. But, those who adopt bhakti yOga
>  ie.upAsana should neccessarily come to the stage of adopting
>  an upAsana. PAncarAtra aids one to come to that stage, by
>  prescribing meditations on vyUha, vibhava avatAras etc. Brahma
>  sUtras deal with the way one has to perform the bhakti-yOga ie.
>  upAsana and the upAsana of vyUha, vibhava avatAras in pAncarAtra
>  doesn't incorporate such rigorous specifications.
>
> -------------------------
>   SrI Sripathy wrote :
>
>   My question is Lord krishna revealed all the 64
>   qualities which a supreme personality of godhead
>   possess.But in all the other avathars he didnt reveal
>   all his qualities.Does this mean during other avathars
>   he didnt not possess it or he din't reveal
>   it.(Especially during rama avathara where he took a
>   human birth and livrd with manushya sharira)
>   Sripathy
> ---------------------
>
>   There is nothing like God has only 64 qualities. Its just
>   an enumeration by a GV AchArya for the purpose of enjoying
>   the auspicious qualities. God has infinitely many auspicious
>   qualities. There is nothing like Lord RAma has lesser
>   number of qualities than Lord KrishNa etc. Even according
>   to GVs, both Lord Rama and Lord KrishNa are same, but
>   different only in the manifestation of qualities and ofcourse
>   Lord KrishNa being the original for them.
>
>   One can enumerate qualities of Lord RAma like "ever speaker of
>   truth", "marrier of only one wife" etc which can't be found in
>   Lord KrishNa. Based on this, one should not arrive at
>   conclusions like one avatAra is superior to other absolutely.
>   The superiority of the avatAras are being talked about, only
>   based on certain manifestation of guNas etc of the same person
>   and the "stress" is on the experience of such guNas and not to
>   make an absolute metaphysical distinction as if Lord RAma is
>   ever inferior to the avatAra of Lord KrishNa etc. Since its
>   the same God who takes many avatAras, one should enjoy all the
>   auspicious qualities exhibited in all the avatAras and there
>   is no Sastric authority to state that worshipping Lord KrishNa
>   is superior to Lord RAma etc. Such theories are formulated by
>   GVs out of their excessive love towards Lord KrishNa.
>
>
> > b) in some places as alredy brought out by other
> > subscribers the position of Sri is not as in the
> > Vishnu puraanam eg. She could not take part in the
> > Rasa Lila of Krishna .
>
>   adiyEn has seen many GVs keep stressing that only those in
>   mAdhurya rasa (like gOpis) can perform rAsa krIda with
>   Lord KrishNa and even "SrI" ie.Lakshmi dEvi can't perform it.
>   These argumnets are made due to the lack of understanding
>   of the tattvas. Moreoever, there is nothing in SrImad BhAgavatham
>   that supports these theories. "SrI" is verily the consort
>   of God and is always in all possible anubhavas with God, by being
>   present ever in union with Him. Even when Lord KrishNa was playing
>   rAsa krIda, "SrI" was united with Him in His chest with a rUpa,
>   apart from being united together through their divyAtma swaroopas
>   (ie.God by His divyAtma swaroopa is all pervading and the
>       divya  aatma Swaroopa of SrI is in union with Him).
>
>
>   adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
>   anantapadmanAbhan.
>   krishNArpaNam.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:13:41 +0530
>    From: Anand Karalapakkam 
> Subject: Re: A Question
>
> SrI:
> SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
> SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -
> SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha
>
>  Dear SrI Anand VAsudEvan,
>  namO nArAyaNa.
>
>  Please go through the article Re: Mutual Exclusion 1
>  in the July 1999 archives :
>  http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jul99/0120.html
>
>  This will be an additional information to that of
>  SrI Hari's short and crisp answer.
>
>  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
>  anantapadmanAbhan.
>
>
> Anand Vasudevan wrote:
>
> > Dear Sri bhagavatas,
> >         In his reply, to sri L.Kumar,Sri A.Bharat has said that  The
simple
> > answer is that-both have GnAna as
> > swarUpa as well as quality;except that for Brahma both are
infinite,whereas
> > for Atman(in his free state) only the quality is infinite.
> > he has quoted emperumanar for the above. but emperumanar has said in one
of
> > his works that emperuman is nirguna brahmam. doesnt the above
contradict?
> > can somebody explain this?
> > Regards,
> > Anand.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:45:54 +0530
>    From: Anand Karalapakkam 
> Subject: krushNAstu bhagavAn swayam
>
>
> SrI:
> SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Para BrahmaNE namaha
> SrImatE SrI Lakshmi Nrusimha Divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-
> Satakopa SrI nArAyaNa Yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha
>
> Dear devotees,
> namO nArAyaNA.
>
>  This posting is regarding the validity of the teaching of
>  Gaudiya VaishnavAs (GVs) that "KrishNa is the original
>  Personality of Godhead and Lord nArAyaNa , other
>  avatArams/forms are His expansions". They quote the following
>  verse from Srimad BhAgavatham to uphold their theory :
>
>  " ete ca amsha kalaaha pumsaha krishNastu bhagavaan svayam |
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******
>  indra-ari vyaakulam lokam mr^Dayanti yuge yuge || "[1.3.28]
>
>  Translation by Sri A.C.BhaktivEdAnta swAmi :
>
> "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary
> portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but
> Lord srI KrishNa is the original Personality of Godhead.
> All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance
> created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the
> theists."
>
> -------------
>
>  Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of
>  nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named
>  "Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as
>  such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever
>  God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the
>  DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things
>  like divine form etc as its attributes. Thus, Lord nArAyaNa
>  is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands. adiyEn will
>  post an article on this issue soon.
>
>
> Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one
> come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and
> nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ?
>
> Whenever GVs say "nArAyaNa", they refer to the four
> handed form of PerumAL.
>
>  This verse doesn't even mention about nArAyaNa. Usage
>  of "KrishNa" here can _atbest_ be considered in
>  "comparison" with other vibhava avatArams (incarnations).
>
>  The verse simply says that in comparison with the
>  above mentioned avatArams , KrishNa is actually
>  bhagavAn (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amsAs of Him .
>  This doesn't (even in the remotest sense ) imply that
>  nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of
>  KrishNa or something like that .
>
>  Even if one makes the extrapolation of the greatest order &
>  gives an interpretation which cannot be derived from this
>  verse like "nArAyaNa is also an amsA (someone inferior) of
>  KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs
>  (including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc. So,
>  such type of claim is obviously not supported by Scriptures.
>
>  For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa
>  aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during
>  praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has
>  _inseparable_ attributes viz. chit   be destructed > and achit , which were in
>  their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one
>  existing).
> ---------------------
>
> Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" )
>          stand for ?
>
>   The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the
>   interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned").
>
>   In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says that the
>   number of incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNa (Hari) are
>   innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a
>   river & goes on to say that RishIs & devas (demigods),
>   Manus & prajApatis are all amsAs of Lord Hari.
>
>   Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations
>   ( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie.
>   nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse
>   1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( "
>   above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not
>   " nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So,
>   obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others
>   are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and
>   are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa).
>
>   In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the
>   same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in
>   amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to
>   a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted
>   as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly
>   taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams).
>
>   We shall later discuss in this posting as to why "KrishNa" was
>   chosen here by sUtar for the clarification.
>
> -------------------------
>
>  Please note that, previously , KrishNA was also listed
>  as one of the incarnation of Hari (nArAyaNa) by Sage
>  SUtar. Actually the sages request Sage sUtar to describe
>  various incarnations of Lord Hari ( SB 1.1.13 & 1.1.18 ).
>  So, the _best extrapolation_ from this verse that one can obtain
>  is that, of all the incarnations (avatArams) that so far
>  has been listed by Sage sUtar , KrishNa is the perfect
>  avatAram ( ie. Poorna avatAram ie. Svayam ) of nArAyaNa &
>  all other avatArams are only amsAs of nArAyaNa, ie. KrishNa
>  is non-different from nArAyaNA since KrishNA is svayam
>  bhagavAn & all other avatArams are not same as nArAyaNa
>  since they are only His amsAs.
>
>  This leads to the following question :
>
>  Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to
>  mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from
>  the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the
>  avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous
>  verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_
>  poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha ,
>  rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only
>  His amsAvatArAs.
>
> This obviously contradicts hundreds of pramAnams.
> Still, Can a sensible interpretation be given, if "ete" can be
> interpretted this way ?
>
> adiyen is giving the answer to this particular question based on
> the Srimad BhAgavatham series appearing in "Sri Nrusimha Priya" .
> The section pertaining to our discussion was written by
> late Sri atthi nrusimhAchAryA (vaikuNThavAsi). Now, it is
> continued by Sri SthalasayanAchArya. This tamil series has
> been released in a book format by "Sri Nrusimha Priya
> Trust" during 1995 , which has the description of Srimad
> BhAgavatham till 3rd Canto , Ch 23 .
>
> The answer to the question lies in the "chatri nyAyam" used
> in sanskrit. It is described as follows : "chatrinO gacchanti"
> => a group of people having umbrellAs are going. Actually,
> not everyone in that group needs to hold an umbrella. This usage,
> though addresses the group as a whole, it doesn't convey that
> everyone in that group has an umbrella. Thus, according to
> "chatri nyAyam", eventhough the adressing be done to the whole
> group, asif everyone has the same characteristic (eg: holding the
> umbrella), still, it needn't convey that _everyone_ in that group
> has that characteristic ie. the intention is to just refer to
> those who actually posses that characteristic (holding an
> umbrella), though adressing is done to the whole group as such.
>
> Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28).
> All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams
> only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa.
> Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be
> grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra
> etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the
> application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only
> to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of
> KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has
> been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word
> "ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been
> listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams
> that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize
> the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a
> contradiction .
> --------------
>
>  The next issue is to whether his can be further explained in the
>  light of the "context" in which Sage sUtar uttered this verse ?
>
>  Actually , the sages were very eager to know about many
>  things . First of all , they payed their salutations to
>  Sage sUtar who was a great rishi having immense knowledge
>  and the fruit of that knowledge viz. ardent devotion unto
>  Sriman nArAyaNa. Sage sUtar was in such a position
>  because he did lot of kainkaryams to his achArya and got his
>  blessings (in form of kAlakshebams etc). Since the katAkshA of a
>  sadAchAryA fell unto Sage sUtar , he could understand
>  all the imports of the vedAs correctly and easily ( All
>  these things are in a way told by the sages themselves
>  to Sage sUtar while glorifying him )
>
>  Sages told Sage sUtar that , since the kali yuga will be
>  filled with people who have mandha buddhi (lack of spiritual
>  knowledge ) & short life, lack of aisvaryam etc & will be
>  immersed in samsAra (materialistic pleasures) , the upadesam of
>  the sAram (essence) of scriptures needs to be done (ie. Kali yuga
>  people have mandha buddhi => perform lot of speculations
>  instead of understanding the tattvA properly under the
>  guidance of a "sadAchArya " => they can't understand the
>  essence of vedAs ). They wanted to know the things which
>  would be of ultimate benifit to all the jIvAtmAs , acts
>  that needs to be followed by jIvAtmAs so that it will please
>  bhagavAn , _about the incarnation of bhagavAn as son of Devaki_,
>  leelAs performed by bhagavAn in various incarnations, glories of
>  nAma sankeertanam, glories of parama bhAgavathOthamAs whose mere
>  katAksha will sanctify a person .
>
>  The sages being ardent devotees of KrishNAvatAram ,
>  which got winded up quite recently , they eagerly asked
>  Sage sUtar to especially describe that avatAram in
>  detail in which bhagavAn as KrishNa alongwith BalarAma did
>  various super human acts. They also wanted to know the person
>  unto whom dharma has taken shelter off after the departure of
>  KrishNa to Sri VaikuNTham .
>
>  So , among all the vibhava avatArams , their __focus__ is
>  on KrishNAvatAram , though they wanted to know about all the
>  avatArams of bhagavAn Sriman nArAyaNa.
>
>  Sage sUtar after briefly explaining about nArAyaNA's
>  divyAtma svaroopam , He being antaryAmi of chit & achit,
>  etc, starts enlisting various avatArams of Sriman nArAyaNa viz.
>  Yoga nidra form , Brahma , 4 kumArAs, Narada , Nara NArAyaNa ,
>  Kapila , DattAtreya , ya~jna (son of sage ruchi & his wife Ahuti),
>  King rushaba, King pruthu , matsyavatAram , koormAvatAram ,
>  Dhanvantari, Mohini , Nrusimha , vAmana , parasurAma , VyAsa ,
>  rAma, BalarAmA , KrishNa , Buddha & Kalki .
>
>  Then Suta pourAnikar continued that the number of
>  incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNa (Hari) are innumerable like
>  thousands of rivulets flowing from a river & goes on to say
>  that RishIs & devAs (demigods), Manus & prajApatis are all
>  amsAs of Lord Hari (1.3.26-27) .
>
>  Now the stage is set for the verse 1.3.28 in our discussion.
>  Note that there were innumerable amsAvatArAs that has been
>  enlisted in comparison with the svayam avatArAs.
>
>  If the word "ete" is interpreted to refer to the amsAvatArams
>  of the verse 1.3.27, then, it makes proper sense.
>
>  Even if the word "ete" be interpreted to apply to all the
>  incarnations enlisted sofar, then by "chatri nyAyam" we can
>  understand the actual implication of the word "ete" (ie. it
>  refers only to the amsAvatArAs listed so far).
>
>  Now, a good representative from the list of poorna avatArams has
>  to be chosen in order to differentiate from the amsAvatArams.
>  The question is to why was "KrishNa" selected here and said as
>  "krishNAstu bhagavAN svayam" and not "rAmA is bhagavAn svayam"
>  OR "nrusimha is bhagavAn svayam", etc, though krishNa, rAma,
>  nrusimha are all the same nArAyaNa (poorna avatArams ; svayam
>  bhagavAn; not amsAvatArAs) ??
>
>  SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager
>  to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was
>  with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna
>  paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA's ardent devotees (ie.
>  who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from
>  their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their
>  darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa
>  and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu,
>  rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta
>  pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of
>  other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
>  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
>  anantapadmanAbhan.
>  krishNArpaNam.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
>    From: Sadagopan 
> Subject: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>
> Dear BhakthAs :
>
> Sriman Balaji of Banglaore asked for some information on
> ThiruninRavUr dhivya desam.Thirumangai Mannan has performed
> MangaLAsAsanam for the EmperumAn of this dhivya dEsam
> with two paasurams in Periya Thirumozhi (2.5.2 and 7.10.5).
> These passurams are housed in the decads praising
> the EmperumAns of ThirukkaNNamangai and Kadal Mallai
> (MahABalipuram of today ). At these two dhivya dEsams ,
> ThiruninRvoor PerumAl crowded in to give the darsanam
> for Thirumangai . It is customary for Thirumangai to
> stand before the EmperumAn of One dhivya dEsam , when
> he is reminded of the similarities in the anga soundharyam
> of other dhivya dEsa PerumALs , which leads him to perform
> mangaLAsAsanam for the PerumALs of more than One dhivya
> dEsam in the set of ten paasurams (decad).
>
> Thirumangai came form ThiruvEnkatam , stopped at
> ThiruveLLUr before arriving at ThiruninRavoor
> to perform his mangaLAsAsanam.
>
> ThiruninRavoor is one mile away from the railway
> station of Thinnanoor . The PerumAl's name is
> Bhakthavathsalan giving us His sevai in the standing
> posture facing east . ThAyAr's thirunAmam is ,
> " YennaippeRRa ThAyAr ". The vimAnam is SrinivAsa
> VimAnam. The river is Vruddha Ksheera nathi.
> The PushkaraiNi's name is VaruNa PushkaraNi.
> The Lord is visible ( prathyaksham ) always to
> VaruNan .
>
> In 1992, adiyEn composed a monograph entitled
> " the 108 Sri VaishNavite Dhivya dEsams " .
> This monograph swelled to 426 pages . Selected
> material from this monograph will be included in
> the new CD ROM under design on " The 12 AzhwArs and
> the 108 dhivya desams that sung about" .adiyEn is
> taking some excerpts from this monograph and elaborating
> on it to enjoy the two paasurams of Thirumangai
> AzhwAr on Bhaktha vathsala PerumAL of ThiruninRavoor.
>
> Thirumangai Mannan ThiruvdigaLE saraNam ,
> Oppiliaapn Koil VaradAchAri Sadagopan
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:57:45 -0700
>    From: "Gunaseelan Venkatachary" 
> Subject: RE: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>
> Dear Sadagopan
> Adiyen would like to add a few to this Dhivya dEsam, this is  based on the
> info what I heard thru poorvachariars, pl correct me ..
>
> For this Dhivya dEsam , Alwar did not visit and Thayaar has urged perumal
to
> appear before Thirumangai and demanding pasuram for him, Thayaar was so
> inspired with Thirumangai's Kainkaryam and hence this urge. As you
mentioned
> Baktavasala perumal appeared before Thirumangai in Thirukannamangai
> divyadesam..
>
> Let me request the bhagavadas to correct me if my understanding is not
> correct..
>
> Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan
> Gunaseelan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sadagopan [mailto:sgopan@computer.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:06 PM
> To: bhakti-list@egroups.com
> Subject: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>
>
> Dear BhakthAs :
>
> Sriman Balaji of Banglaore asked for some information on
> ThiruninRavUr dhivya desam.Thirumangai Mannan has performed
> MangaLAsAsanam for the EmperumAn of this dhivya dEsam
> with two paasurams in Periya Thirumozhi (2.5.2 and 7.10.5).
> These passurams are housed in the decads praising
> the EmperumAns of ThirukkaNNamangai and Kadal Mallai
> (MahABalipuram of today ). At these two dhivya dEsams ,
> ThiruninRvoor PerumAl crowded in to give the darsanam
> for Thirumangai . It is customary for Thirumangai to
> stand before the EmperumAn of One dhivya dEsam , when
> he is reminded of the similarities in the anga soundharyam
> of other dhivya dEsa PerumALs , which leads him to perform
> mangaLAsAsanam for the PerumALs of more than One dhivya
> dEsam in the set of ten paasurams (decad).
>
> Thirumangai came form ThiruvEnkatam , stopped at
> ThiruveLLUr before arriving at ThiruninRavoor
> to perform his mangaLAsAsanam.
>
> ThiruninRavoor is one mile away from the railway
> station of Thinnanoor . The PerumAl's name is
> Bhakthavathsalan giving us His sevai in the standing
> posture facing east . ThAyAr's thirunAmam is ,
> " YennaippeRRa ThAyAr ". The vimAnam is SrinivAsa
> VimAnam. The river is Vruddha Ksheera nathi.
> The PushkaraiNi's name is VaruNa PushkaraNi.
> The Lord is visible ( prathyaksham ) always to
> VaruNan .
>
> In 1992, adiyEn composed a monograph entitled
> " the 108 Sri VaishNavite Dhivya dEsams " .
> This monograph swelled to 426 pages . Selected
> material from this monograph will be included in
> the new CD ROM under design on " The 12 AzhwArs and
> the 108 dhivya desams that sung about" .adiyEn is
> taking some excerpts from this monograph and elaborating
> on it to enjoy the two paasurams of Thirumangai
> AzhwAr on Bhaktha vathsala PerumAL of ThiruninRavoor.
>
> Thirumangai Mannan ThiruvdigaLE saraNam ,
> Oppiliaapn Koil VaradAchAri Sadagopan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Good friends, school spirit, hair-dos you'd like to forget.
> Classmates.com has them all. And with 4.4 million alumni already
> registered, there's a good chance you'll find your friends here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2885/2/_/716111/_/956189136/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>            - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
> To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
> Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
>    Date: 19 Apr 00 19:35:03 MDT
>    From: M.S.HARI (Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari) 
> Subject: Re: [Question from Sripathy ]
>
> Dear Lakshminarayanan Ramasubramanian,
>
> I do not accept that there is a limit of "64 qualities" which the
> supreme personality of Godhead possess. In fact, the Vedas declare
> that the Lord Shreeman Naaraayana has infinite number of divine
> qualities. The Lord's incarnation has a secret associated with it
> as declared in the 3rd chapter of Geetha. I explain this to answer your
> question. There are 6 facts which declare his Birth which is incarnation
> and differentiates it from our material birth. They are:
> 1. The Lord is born(incarnates) as per his own Wish (sankalpa) but our
> birth is because of our karma - The Lord does not have any karma. The
> Lord has infact no birth but incarnates in various forms (Ajaayamaano
> Bhahudaa Vijaayate -Veda)
> 2. The Lord is born(incarnates) without change in his qualities like
> knowledge. But when we are born, our knowledge gets contracted as
> per our karma.
> 3. The Lord's incarnation like Raama/Krishna are real and are facts.
> 4. When the Lord Incarnates, his body is divine, transendental
> Sudha-Satva form but our bodies when we are born are material (satva-
> rajas-tamas combination)
> 5. The Lord Incarnates at that time when Dharma is week and Adharma
> is growing reaching its heights.
> 6. The Lord Incarnates to protect Shree Vaishnava Saadhu people,
> protects the Dharma establishes it and destroys the Adharma.
>
> Thus the Lord Hari in Vaikunta and incarnation of the Lord Hari are
> the same. The Lord during all his incarnations has the same infinite
> divine qualities. He displays some of them and does not display some
> of them in each incarnation which is as per his wish. This does not
> mean that the Lord does not possess all his qualities in certain
> incarnations. Hope your question is answered clearly. For doubts/questions
> please write to me.
>
> Regards
> M.S.HARI Raamaanuja Daasan.
> ===========================================================
>
> lakshminarayanan ramasubramanian  wrote:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Attachment:
> > MIME Type: multipart/alternative
> > ---------------------------------------------
> Dear bhagavathas
> My question is Lord krishna revealed all the 64
> qualities which a supreme personality of godhead
> possess.But in all the other avathars he didnt reveal
> all his qualities.Does this mean during other avathars
> he didnt not possess it or he din't reveal
> it.(Especially during rama avathara where he took a
> human birth and livrd with manushya sharira)
> Sripathy
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:26:19 -0400 (EDT)
>    From: Sadagopan 
> Subject: Fund Raising (pledges) completed for  the Two Kaimkaryams: (1)
Sri RaamAnujA's new ThridhaNdam at SriperumbhUdhUr(2)The CD ROM on the Life
and works of  the 12 AzhwArs and the 108 dhivya dEsams that they sung about
.
>
> Dear BhakthAs :
>
> It is my great bhAgyam to let you know that additional
> BhakthAs have come forward with their pledges today to
> reach the target of $5,500 for the two Kaimkaryams .
> AdiyEn's namaskArams to all the BhakthAs , who have
> come forward to participate in these two kaimkaryams .
> This is indeed a subha dinam .
>
> Number of checks have been received by now .The BhakthAs ,
> who have pledged their support , but not sent
> their checks yet are kindly requested to send their
> contributions to one or other of the addresses
> listed below before May 9 at the latest .We will
> start the CD ROM Kaimkaryam formally on May 9,
> the Thirunakshathram day of AchArya RaamAnujA .
>
> The ThridhaNdam creation project has started already
> and we hope that it will be ready a day or two before
> AchArya RaamAnujA's Thirunakshathram to present it
> at Sri PerumbhUthUr to our Udayavar on behalf of
> the members of this Kaimkaryam commitee.
>
> It is a pleasure to acknowledge your enthusisatic
> responses to the invitation for particpation in
> these two Kaimkaryams .This appeal was made first on
> March 21 and by today ( April 19), you have
> come thru with Your pledges to reach the target figure
> of $5,500 needed to complete these two kaimkaryams
> and to place them at the feet of the AzhwArs,
> EmprumAnAr and the Dhivya dampathis.
>
> Thank You all for the display of such aasthIkyam
> and kainkarya chinthanai .
>
> With My athayntha PraNAmams to this BhagavathA group,
> Daasan , Oppiliappan Koil VaradAchAri SadagOpan
>
> The two addresses for your use are :
>
> (1) V.Sadagopan
>     Apt 6B-1, Scarborough manor
>     Scarborough , NY 10510
>
> (2) Rupee Contributions:
>     M.A.Alwar
>     142 College Road (Upstairs)
>     KR Mohalla
>     Mysore 570 024
>     Karanataka State, India.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:37:11 -0400 (EDT)
>    From: Sadagopan 
> Subject: RE: ThiruninRavUr Dhivya dEsam : Part I
>
> Dear Sri Gunaseelan Venkatachary:
>
> Thanks very much your note. AdiyEn did not write about
> this aspect of  what happened to Thirumangai
> or did not happen to Thirumangai at ThiruninRavoor
> for the following reasons .
>
> Some of the poorvAchAyAls have indeed said that
> PerumAl was busy enjoying the company of ThAyAr
> that He did not pay attention to Thirumangai,
> when he  arrived for MangaLAsAsanam .It is said
> that the unhappy AzhwAr left ThiruninRavoor and
> the Lord of ThiruninRavoor gave His darsanam
> to the AzhwAr later at Thirukkadanmallai .
>
> Many commentators have felt that the dhivya dampathis
> will not ignore a Bhakthan , who has  arrived at their
> dhivya dEsam . They have pointed out the the perumAL
> with the name of Bhaktha Vathsalan and a ThAyAr with
> the thirunAmam of "YennaippeRRa ThAyAr" will not
> warmly welcome their dear Bhakthan and child ,
> Thriumangai AzhwAr.
>
> This group of commentators have pointed out
> that it was Thirumangai's custom to pay tribute
> to the other dhivya desa EmperumAns and also
> VibhavAvathaara moorthys in his pasasurams
> composed for one dhivya dEsa EmperumAn.
>
> In the subsequent paasurams on Thirukkadanmallai ,
> Thirumangai says that he saw the Kalki avthAran and
> TanjaikkOil PerumAL at the Thirukkadanmallai
> dhivya dEsam. These commentators have explained
> that Thirumangai usually gets reminded of the jaadai ,
> chaayal and aabharaNams of other dhivya desa
> moorthys , when he enjoys one PerumAl.
>
> What happened to Thirumangai at IndaLoor is however
> some thing specific.AzhwAr did not have the darsanam
> of the perumAL of this dhivya dEsam and got furious
> and has recorded his (aazhwAr's ) annoyance very
> clearly in his Paasurams ( nindhA sthuthi paasurams).
> It is not clear from AzhwAr's two paasurams linked
> with ThiruninRavoor that there was any such hard feelings
> experienced by AzhwAr at ThiruninRavoor.
>
> At Thirurneermalai, Azhwar had to wait for 6 months
> for the flood waters to recede before he could
> have the darsanam of the Lord of that dhivya dEsam.
> AzhwAr does not give up quickly .He would have waited
> at ThiruninRavoor to fulfil the purpose of his visit .
> With all these reasons in mind , commentatros
> have indicated that Thirumangai had the darsanam
> of Bhaktha Vathsala PerumAL at ThiruninRavoor.
>
>
> In one Paasuram relating to ThiruninRavoor, AzhwAr says:
>
> "NinRavoor nitthilatthai --kanDathu naan Kadanmallai
>  TalasayanatthE "..Periya Thirumozhi(PTM) : 2.5.2
>
> In the other Paasuram , Thirumangai acknowledges
> that he sought and saw the Lord of ThiruninRavoor
> at ThirukkaNNamangai:
>
> " NinRavoor ninRa nitthila thotthinai --
>   senRu naadik KaNNamangayutk kanDu-konDEnE " .. PTM 7.10.5
>
> The thorough enjoyment of the beauty of the Lord
> of ThriuninRavoor does not seem to leave AzhwAr's
> mind at ThirukkaNNamangai and Thirukkadanmallai.
> Thus he refers to having seen the Lord of
> ThiruninRavoor at these two sthalams .
>
> The first paasuram on ThiruninRavoor ( poonDavattham--)
> is a profound condemnation of Veda Baahya mathams
> and Kudhrushti mathams . AzhwAr pities those , who
> follow these mathams and get deluded and performs
> upadEsam to these misguided souls and instructs them
> that the archai of Sriman NaarAyaNan at Thiruninravoor
> is the only true Lord , who can grant them Moksham .
>
> In his second paasuram ( yERRinai -- PTM: 7.10.5), AzhwAr
> points out that the Lord of ThiruninRavoor is the One,
> who grants auspicious boons in this world and Moksha sukham
> in the other world ( Parama Padham )and that He is the One ,
> who incarnates in many roopams ( Vibhavam) for
> dharma samsthApanam , Saadhu ParipAlanam and
> Dhushta Niugraham.
>
> adiyEn, Oppiliappan Koil Varadachari Sdaagopan
>
>
> At 05:57 PM 4/19/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear Sadagopan
> >Adiyen would like to add a few to this Dhivya dEsam, this is  based on
the
> >info what I heard thru poorvachariars, pl correct me ..
> >
> >For this Dhivya dEsam , Alwar did not visit and Thayaar has urged perumal
to
> >appear before Thirumangai and demanding pasuram for him, Thayaar was so
> >inspired with Thirumangai's Kainkaryam and hence this urge. As you
mentioned
> >Baktavasala perumal appeared before Thirumangai in Thirukannamangai
> >divyadesam..
> >
> >Let me request the bhagavadas to correct me if my understanding is not
> >correct..
> >
> >Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan
> >Gunaseelan
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:19:54 -0700
>    From: "Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri" 
> Subject: THIRUNINRAVUR
>
> Srimad Venkata lakshmana yativaraya namah.
>
> Dear Bhagavatas,
>
> namskar.
>
> Thiruninravur (also known as Thinnanur) is one of the 108 DDs. Perumal is
Bhakta vatsalan and Thayar is "en pettha thAy" (my Mother). This is a very
peaceful DD.
> Bhagavatas of the villlage are very nice.
>
> H.H. Thiruppadhi periya jeeyar swamigal is the permanent trustee of the
temple. the temples' jIrNoddharaNam was done by previous periya jeeyar H H
gOvinda rAmAnuja jeeyar. However, due to lack of funds,
> many things could not be done.
>
> the temple car and rAja gOpuram are in dilapidated condition and have to
undergo major repairs at the earliest.
> visited the DD a few months ago hence dont know the current position.
>
> Alwar emberumAnAr dESikan jeeyar Thiruvadiigale Saranam
> vishnu
>
> >Message: 5
> >   Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:19:36 +0530
> >   From: Balaji CG 
> >Subject: Request
> >
> >Swami Desikan ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam
> >
> >Dear Bhagavatha-s,
> >
> >Could any of the esteemed menbers of the group provide some information
> >regarding Thiruninravoor divyadesam.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Regards,
> >Balaji
> >SIEMENS Communication Software
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
> http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
>    Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:37:36 +0530
>    From: "Sridharaan, Viji (CTS)" 
> Subject: Unsubsribe
>
> Please remove me from the mailing list
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri [mailto:s.vinjamuri@mailcity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:50 PM
> To: bhakti-list@egroups.com
> Subject: THIRUNINRAVUR
>
>
> Srimad Venkata lakshmana yativaraya namah.
>
> Dear Bhagavatas,
>
> namskar.
>
> Thiruninravur (also known as Thinnanur) is one of the 108 DDs. Perumal is
> Bhakta vatsalan and Thayar is "en pettha thAy" (my Mother). This is a very
> peaceful DD.
> Bhagavatas of the villlage are very nice.
>
> H.H. Thiruppadhi periya jeeyar swamigal is the permanent trustee of the
> temple. the temples' jIrNoddharaNam was done by previous periya jeeyar H H
> gOvinda rAmAnuja jeeyar. However, due to lack of funds,
> many things could not be done.
>
> the temple car and rAja gOpuram are in dilapidated condition and have to
> undergo major repairs at the earliest.
> visited the DD a few months ago hence dont know the current position.
>
> Alwar emberumAnAr dESikan jeeyar Thiruvadiigale Saranam
> vishnu
>
> >Message: 5
> >   Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:19:36 +0530
> >   From: Balaji CG 
> >Subject: Request
> >
> >Swami Desikan ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam
> >
> >Dear Bhagavatha-s,
> >
> >Could any of the esteemed menbers of the group provide some information
> >regarding Thiruninravoor divyadesam.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Regards,
> >Balaji
> >SIEMENS Communication Software
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
> http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get paid while you shop!
> You also get an additional 10% off on retailers
> like--Disney.com, eCost.com, FogDog.com and more.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3416/2/_/716111/_/956203295/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>            - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
> To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
> Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
>    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:28:36 -0500 (CDT)
>    From: Kasturi Varadarajan 
> Subject: vibhava lOkAs
>
> Dear friends,
>
> For those who like me may have been clean bowled by this paragraph
> of Anand:
>
>  meditation) on the vibhava forms of God will reach the vibhava
> lOkas, which are actually inside the material world. Similarly,
> those who meditate upon the vyUha forms of God will reach the
> vyUha lOkas. Please refer to archives for more information on
> this issue. Thus, meditation on Lord KrishNa (and not adopting
> any standard upAsana prescribed in Upanishads) will make one
> attain GOloka, which is inside the material world only. There
> is only one spiritual world called VaikuNTha and there is no
> gradation in moksha.>
>
>
>
> I think this is the article being referred to:
>
> http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/nov99/0037.html
>
> (There are several others
> titled `vibhava lOkAs' but they have a lively discussion on Vaikuntha.)
> Any other articles that may shed some light on this concept?
>
> thanks
> Kasturi
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
>    Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:53:17 -0400
>    From: "S. HariKrishna" 
> Subject: Re: krushNAstu bhagavAn swayam
>
> From: Anand Karalapakkam 
>
> >  Please note that the person nArAyaNa is not the form of
> >  nArAyaNa. Lord's divine body is made of the tattva named
> >  "Suddha Sattva". It has its own characteristics. Lord as
> >  such is a chEtana, different from Suddha-sattva. Whenever
> >  God/ParamAtma/BhagavAn etc is referred, it refers to the
> >  DivyAtma Swaroopa which as a chEtana has all other things
> >  like divine form etc as its attributes.
>
> I would like to see explicit shaastric pramaanams giving the distinction
> between the Lord and His suddha-sattva body as mentioned here.
>
> Thus, Lord nArAyaNa
> >  is not someone who is restricted to 4 hands. adiyEn will
> >  post an article on this issue soon.
>
> What question is there of the Lord being "restricted" if His body is made
of
> suddha-sattva? There are many statements in the Upanishads to the effect
> that everywhere are the Lord's hands, eyes, etc. Bhaagavatam 10.2.18 also
> describes that wherever Krishna is, He is accompanied by His
> "Achyutaamshas."
>
> It would seem to me that the idea that the Lord must be still superior to
> His body is based on the fallacious reasoning based on experience of
> baddha-jiivas that having form implies restriction.
>
> > Qtn 1: By the above Srimad BhAgavatham (SB) verse can one
> > come to the conclusion that KrishNa is the actual God and
> > nArAyaNa is secondary ( "expansion ?" ) to Him ?
>
> >  This verse doesn't even mention about nArAyaNa. Usage
>
> That is true. But the verse very clearly states that Krishna is the svayam
> bhagavaan, or Bhagavaan in person. This is in contrast to the other
> avataaras (such as Raama, Narasimha, Varaaha, Vaamana) listed previously
in
> the same adhyaaya who are "amsha kalaaH pumsaH." That there is a contrast
> between these other forms of the Lord and Krishna is very clear from the
> Sanskrit. Also, the beginning of this list includes the purusha form of
the
> Lord - see 1.3.1. Hence even this form of the Lord is "amsha kalaaH"
> compared to Krishna, if we take this literally.
>
> >  The verse simply says that in comparison with the
> >  above mentioned avatArams , KrishNa is actually
> >  bhagavAn (bhagavAn svayam) whereas others are amsAs of Him .
> >  This doesn't (even in the remotest sense ) imply that
> >  nArAyaNa( either as a person or as a form) is an amsA of
> >  KrishNa or something like that .
>
> However, there are other statements in the Bhaagavatam in which Naaraayana
> is again taken as a form of Krishna. For example, when Bhiishma is lying
on
> his bed of arrows, he says:
>
> eSha vai bhagavaan saakShaadaadyo naaraayaNaH pumaan |
> mohayanmaayayaa loka.m guuDhashcharati vR^iShNiShu || bhaa 1.9.18 ||
>
> Here Krishna is described as the original (saakShaat), the first
Naaraayana
> (aadyaH naaraayaNaH).
>
> A similar remark is made by Lord Brahmaa in the 10th skandha, 14th
adhyaaya.
> This is the chapter in which Lord Brahmaa stole the gopas and placed them
in
> seclusion, only to see that Krishna Himself had expanded to reproduce all
> the gopas, thus "bewildering" Lord Brahmaa. When asking for forgiveness
for
> his mistake, Brahmaa says:
>
> naaraayaNastva.m na hi sarvadehinaam aatmaasyadhiishaakhilalokasaakShii |
> naaraayaNo'.nga.m narabhuujalaayanaat tachchaapi satya.m na tavaiva maayaa
> || bhaa 10.14.14 ||
>
> Are You not actually Naaraayana, since You are (the life and) soul of all
> embodied beings? (Nay,) You are their Prompter as well as the Witness of
all
> creatures. (The celebrated) Lord Naaraayana, so-called because He has His
> abode in things produced out of Nara (God) as well as in the waters
evolved
> out of Him, *constitutes a form of Yours* (bhaagvata puraaNa 10.14.14).
>
> Here, the words "naaraayaNo'.nga.m" or "expanded portion of Naaraayana"
> again drive home the idea that Naaraayana is a form of Krishna.
>
> So it seems that the Bhaagavatam supports this idea very clearly.
>
> >  Even if one makes the extrapolation of the greatest order &
> >  gives an interpretation which cannot be derived from this
> >  verse like "nArAyaNa is also an amsA (someone inferior) of
> >  KrishNA" it contradicts many pramAnams from VedAs
> >  (including Upanishads), IthihAsa-purANas, pAncarAtrA etc.
>
> What Vedas and Upanishads would those be?
>
> >  For instance, MahOpanishad (1.1) says " yekO ha vai nArAyaNa
> >  aasIt" { "Only nArAyaNA existed (in the beginning ie. during
> >  praLayam) }". This means that, the "person" nArAyaNA ( who has
> >  _inseparable_ attributes viz. chit  >  be destructed > and achit , which were in
> >  their sookshma state during the praLayam, was the only one
> >  existing).
>
> But Naaraayana and Krishna are the same person! I don't see how this can
be
> used to support the view you are advocating. If the "only Naaraayana
> existed" part is taken to mean that Krishna did not exist at that time,
then
> that is tantamount to saying that the form of Krishna is not eternal.
>
> Anyway, using this pramaana to prove what you say would be like me quoting
> Bhagavad-Giitaa where Krishna says, "aha.m sarvasya prabhavo mattaH
sarva.m
> pravartate / etc" ("I am the source of all creation and everything in the
> world moves because of Me; knowing thus the wise, full of devotion,
> constantly worship Me."). Using your logic, if Krishna is the source of
> everything, then Naaraayana is not. Therefore Krishna is even the source
of
> Naaraayana. Would you accept this? I don't think so. Hence, I think your
> interpretation of Mahopanishad cannot be used to contradict the statements
> in the Bhaagavatam in which Naaraayana is seen as another form of Krishna.
>
> There are many statements which name a specific form of Vishnu as being
the
> source of everything. If we interpret them so literally then they would
all
> contradict each other.
>
> > Qtn 2 : What does the "above mentioned avatArams" ( "ete" )
> >          stand for ?
> >
> >   The whole issue of understanding this verse lies in the
> >   interpretation given to the word "ete" (ie. "above mentioned").
> >
> >   In the previous two verses (1.3.26-27), sUtar says that the
> >   number of incarnations of Sriman nArAyaNa (Hari) are
> >   innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a
> >   river & goes on to say that RishIs & devas (demigods),
> >   Manus & prajApatis are all amsAs of Lord Hari.
> >
> >   Now the question arises as to whether, all these incarnations
> >   ( rishis, manus and others) are actually "svayam bhagavAn" ie.
> >   nArAyaNa Himself. To clarify that, sUtar is telling in the verse
> >   1.3.28 that rishIs, anya dEvatAs (dEvAs), manus and others ( "
> >   above mentioned avatArams") are not "svayam bhagavAn" ( not
> >   " nArAyaNA Himself), but KrishNa is bhagavAn Himself. So,
> >   obviously, SUtar wants to reiterate that rishis and others
> >   are only amsAvatArAs (ie. They are not same as nArAyaNa) and
> >   are different from PerumAL's svayam avatArams (like KrishNa).
>
> But anyone can see that this interpretation is very roundabout. There are
> three main flaws in the argument that the "ete chaamsha kalaaH pumsaH"
verse
> is simply attempting to contrast entities in the jiiva category (anya
> devatas, Manus, rishis, etc) with Naaraayana:
>
> First of all, why would Krishna be specifically named? Of all the
avataaras
> of the Lord who appear and act in human-like ways, there are certainly
> others who could have been referred to. There would have been no need to
> name Krishna. Instead, Suuta could have said, "the Manus, Rishis, and anya
> devatas are all amshas of the Lord, but the other avataaras like Raama,
> Narasimha, Vaamana, Krishna, and so on are svayam bhagavaan or Naaraayana
> Himself."
>
> Secondly, there are other "avataaras" mentioned in the chapter who are
> devotees of Vishnu, not Naaraayana Himself. These include the Kumaaras,
> Naarada, and others. It is not only in verse 1.3.27 where "avataaras" are
> mentioned who are not Naaraayana. Why would the verse *only* contrast
> Manus/rishis/anya-devatas with Naaraayana? That implies then that even
> Naarada, Kumaaras and so on are also Naaraayana, since they were not
> included in the contrast.
>
> Third, verse 1.3.27 *already* says that the Manus, rishis, and so on are
> "kalaH sarve harer..." or amshas of Lord Hari. If verse 1.3.28 were merely
> contrasting Naaraayana with these amshas, then it would be redundant.
>
> >   In svayam avatArams like nrusimha, rAma, krishNa, it is the
> >   same person(nArAyaNA) who is taking different forms. But, in
> >   amsAvatArams, nArAyaNa simply bestows extrordinary powers to
> >   a jIvAtma to achieve certain things (but, this is also counted
> >   as a type of "avatAram", though it is not PerumAL who is directly
> >   taking the avatAram, as in the case of svayam avatArams).
>
> This definition of amsha seems to preclude the possibility that other
forms
> of Naaraayana can be referred to as amshas. But in Bhaagavatam 10.2.18
> referred to earlier, Krishna is said to be accompanied by His "Achyuta
> amshas."
>
> >  Please note that, previously , KrishNA was also listed
> >  as one of the incarnation of Hari (nArAyaNa) by Sage
> >  SUtar. Actually the sages request Sage sUtar to describe
> >  various incarnations of Lord Hari ( SB 1.1.13 & 1.1.18 ).
> >  So, the _best extrapolation_ from this verse that one can obtain
> >  is that, of all the incarnations (avatArams) that so far
> >  has been listed by Sage sUtar , KrishNa is the perfect
> >  avatAram ( ie. Poorna avatAram ie. Svayam ) of nArAyaNa &
> >  all other avatArams are only amsAs of nArAyaNa, ie. KrishNa
> >  is non-different from nArAyaNA since KrishNA is svayam
> >  bhagavAn & all other avatArams are not same as nArAyaNa
> >  since they are only His amsAs.
>
> But "perfect avataaram of Naaraayana" is *nowhere* stated in the Sanskrit
of
> the verse in question. And in fact other pramaanas I have provided from
the
> Bhaagavatam show Naaraayana as a form of Krishna.
>
> >  This leads to the following question :
> >
> >  Qtn 3: If the word "ete" ("above mentioned") is interpreted to
> >  mean _all_ the incarnations that has been enlisted so far from
> >  the beginning by Sage SUtar( instead of referring it to only the
> >  avatArams like manus, rishis and others enlisted in the previous
> >  verse 1.3.27) it leads to a conclusion that KrishNa is the _only_
> >  poorna avatAram of nArAyaNa & all other avatArams like nrusimha ,
> >  rAma ( which were also listed previously to verse 1.3.28) are only
> >  His amsAvatArAs.
>
> The specific language used by the Bhaagavatam in verse 1.3.28 is that
> Krishna is "svayam bhagavaan." I'm not sure of the possible shades of
> meaning you might assign to the term "poorna avataaram," but "svayam
> bhagavaan" means literally Bhagavaan Himself. Description of the other
> avataaras of Naaraayana as amshas makes sense if They are not thought of
as
> amshas in the sense that the Manus, rishis, and anya-devatas are amshas.
> Bhaagavatam 10.2.18 makes reference to "Achyutaamshas" who accompany Lord
> Krishna. Surely if the Bhaagavatam says it, then it cannot be wrong.
Hence,
> the statement that other avataaras of the Lord are "amshas" should not be
> taken to mean they are like jiivas, who are also described in different
> context as amshas.
>
> > Lets see how "chatri nyAyam" is employed in this verse (1.3.28).
> > All avatArams of the type Nrusimha , RAma are Poorna avatArams
> > only, since they are taken by the same person nArAyaNa.
> > Eventhough all the poorna avatArms ( no umbrella) seems to be
> > grouped with that of many other avatArams (anupravesa / amsAvatAra
> > etc; with umbrellA ) by the word "ete", its actual import from the
> > application of "chatri nyAyam" is that the word "ete" refers only
> > to the amsa avatArams (with umbrella). So, the comparison of
> > KrishNAvatAram is strictly not with _all_ the avatArams that has
> > been listed before, but only with other amsa avatArams. The word
> > "ete", though addresses the whole group of avatArams that has been
> > listed so far, the intention is to refer to only those avatArams
> > that are amsAvatArams (with umbrella). If one fails to recognize
> > the "chatri nyAyam " employed, it leads him/her into a
> > contradiction .
>
> Believe it if you want, but this is a very hard pill to swallow. Even if
the
> "ete" refers to the whole group, and yet only to the "amshaavataaras" or
> empowered avataaras, my original objections still apply. Also, the
"chaatri
> nyaayam" concept would seem to imply that the group of persons being
> referred to all share something in common (such as all requiring the
> umbrella for cover, though in fact only a few are carrying umbrella). But
> the amshaavataaras and poornaavataaras (as you have defined them) are as
> different as night and day - one group are jiivas while the other consists
> of different forms of the omnipotent, omniscient, all-pervading Lord. It
> seems unlikely that "ete" would refer to the whole group consisting of two
> categories of *very,* *different* avataaras when only one of the groups is
> actually intended.
>
> >  SUtar chose "KrishNa" because all the sages were very much eager
> >  to know a lot about KrishNA ie. the focus of their questions was
> >  with that avatAram. Also, KrishNA is well known for the shadguna
> >  paripoornam. Also, the sages being KrishNA's ardent devotees (ie.
> >  who wishes to relish the pastimes KrishNA ; pretty obvious from
> >  their questions to sUtar), should be doubly assured that their
> >  darling KrishNa is neverthless "svayam bhagavAn" Sriman nArAyaNa
> >  and is not a amsAvatAra (namba krishnan svayam bhagavAn; manu,
> >  rishi, pruthu ...avAlalAm pOla amsAvatAram illai ). So, Suta
> >  pourAnikar chose to use "Krishna" in the verse 1.3.28 instead of
> >  other svayam avatArams like rAmA and nrusimha.
>
> First of all, if they were already devotees of Lord Krishna, then there
> would be no doubt in their minds that Krishna was "amshaavataaram."
> Secondly, the sages who posed the questions to Suuta ask their questions
in
> a general way (i.e. what is the greatest good for all men, what is the
> essence of all scriptures, etc) but refer to Krishnaavataaram in passing
> (such as for example, by referring to Suuta as he who knows the purpose of
> Krishnaavataaram in verse 1.1.12,). They never came forth and actually
asked
> to be told about Krishna, though their words seemed to indicate that they
> thought this was where the answers would be. And Suuta *confirms* that
their
> questions are specifically related to Krishna  (verse 1.2.5), a specific
> response to a series of very general questions. Was Suuta just buttering
> them up? Were the sages of  Naimisharanya, despite all their knowledge of
> Vedas, so enamored of one particular avataara that they could not hear the
> truth objectively? Highly unlikely. Even in the very first verse of the
> Bhaagavatam, Vyaasa Himself offers obeisances to Krishna as son of
Vasudeva
> (om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya). And surely the realizations of Vyaasa,
who
> is the celebrated compiler of the Vedas, cannot be so subjective!
>
> It's beyond the scope of this post to show it, but the Bhaagavatam clearly
> makes itself out to be the essence of the Vedas, and that scripture meant
to
> explain the truth of the Vedaanta-suutra. With such high expectations in
> mind, I find it unlikely that Vyaasa would have written in such a way as
to
> let His most precious work be subjected to the arbitrary sentiments of
> individual devotees. If Krishna is said to be svayam bhagavaan, then I
would
> take it to mean that He is svayam bhagavaan, period, and not that the
> statement was meant for a specific group of devotees with specific
> expectations. Bhaagavatam has all the characteristics of a saattvik
puraana
> which means, according to A.S. Raghavan (author of _Vishishtaadvaita_)
that
> it is a specific response to very general questions and hence is devoid of
> sectarianism. Besides which, it was the last of the Puraanas to be
> written/compiled, and it was done so after Vyaasa compiled
Vedaanta-suutra.
> This is all described in 1st skandha. Vyaasa was feeling despondent in
spite
> of compiling so many other scriptures including Vedaanta-suutra and
> Mahaabhaarata, and realized that He needed to specifically elaborate on
the
> glories and qualities of the Lord. The result was Shriimad Bhaagavatam,
> which even Vyaasa writes is the essence of the shrutis (1.4.7)!
>
> regards,
>
> Krishna
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
>    Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: bindinganavale suresh 
> Subject: Real and unreal
>
> Respected Bhagavatha,
>                      In my previous mail i had written
> about the above states from the point of view of
> Svarupa gnanam and Dharma-bhuta gnanam of jiva atman.
> There i had briefly mentioned about the object of
> consciousness in dream and waking state.Now,the topic
> seems to have shifted to the terms real and unreal and
> its relevance in the philosophy of Sri Ramanuja.Let me
> try to present my understanding of the same.
>
> According to visista-advaita,there are three
> realities,which are Isvara(brahman),jiva and prakriti.
> The latter two are inseperable from the Isvara(except
> for the purpose of analysis of their true nature) and
> form the body or modes of Isvara.
>
> Now,all the three are "real" in the sense that their
> true nature in the aspects of both svarupa and
> guna(attribute) are eternal(indestructible)  and
> reality of one type cannot become either of the other
> two i.e jiva cannot become isvara tattva or prakriti
> tattva(except ofcourse by ignorance),though there are
> modifications of jiva(at Dharmabhuta gnana level
> during bondage) and prakriti(both at substance and
> attribute level) in themselves.
>
> Even,shankaracharya in his vivekachudamani defines
> real in the above sense.
> The term "unreal" is applied to all kinds of mistaken
> notions about the three basic realities(which is the
> case in bondage),which ultimatley is proved false by
> the understanding of their true nature(as in the case
> of moksha).
>
> In the state of bondage due to karma, the jiva is not
> aware of its true nature and imagines itself as either
> prakriti(body) or Isvara.The true nature of
> realities are understood partially by the jiva atman
> leading to ahamkara and misapprehensions of the
> realities as in the rope-snake case.Such wrong
> identification and corresponding values of desirable
> and undesirable is the root cause of all the
> experiences of fleeting pleasure and pain in the
> waking and dream state and is also a fitness of the
> jiva to experience its karma, the fruit of which is
> given by the Lord by creating appropriate
> circumstances in waking and dream states.
>
> In short,the experience of bondage on the part of jiva
> is a fact as long as it is not aware of the three
> realities in the true sense or as long as it persists
> in the realm of unreal.
>
> In the state of release from karma,the attributive
> consciousness is not obscured and the Jiva is awake to
> its own true nature and the true nature of the other
> two realities.
>
>
> I hope the above analysis satisfies the doubts of
> Sri.chandrashekaran in a broader sense.
>
> Sri Krishnaarpanamasthu
> Suresh B.N.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
>    Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 02:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: ranganathan narasimhan 
> Subject: Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc
>
>
>
> --- Anand Karalapakkam  wrote:
>
> >   SrImad BhAgavatham as such is considered as
> > "Sruti"
> >   by some Gaudiya Vaishnava AchAryas, which can't be
> >
> >   accepted by us and other vaidikAs ie. those who
> > follow
> >   vEdas. adiyEn doesn't know as to whether SrI
> > BaladEva,
> >   who wrote a commentry for Brahma sUtras for
> > Gaudiya
> >   Vaishnavas, endorses the view that SrImad
> > BhAgavatham is
> >   a Sruti. It will then be contradictory to quote
> > SrImad
> >   BhAgavatham as a pramAna by him, in those places
> > where sUtras
> >   refer to a Smruti for further strengthening its
> > standpoint.
> dear sriman anand,
> as it was pointed out by sriman harikrishna,  it was
> already established by sri jiva goswami of the same
> school that srimad bhagavatham is the best pramana.
> hence sri baladeva did not have any  reservations in
> substantiating his views from the srimad bhagavatham.
> srimad bhagavatham is unique as being taken as a smrti
> sastra(padma purana says so), matured fruit of smrti
> sastras( SB says so 1.4.7) and also as nyaya sastra
> since it is called as the natural commentary of the
> brahma sutras by sri vyasa himself in Garuda purana.
>
>
> >  One of the difficulties in the philosophy of GVs is
> > that,
> >  they have a graded version of the Ultimate Truth
> > viz.
> >  BhagavAn, ParamAtma and NirguNa Brahman.
> >
> >  BhagavAn is equated with Lord KrishNa who is
> > accalimed
> >  by them as the original God, filled with all
> > auspicious
> >  qualities etc. To be more precise, some GVs also
> > say that,
> >  only that KrishNa who was at BrindAvan playing with
> > gOpis,
> >  and esp. who did rAsa krIda is the "original" God
> > and
> >  all other forms are only His expansions. For GVs,
> > there
> >  is a gradation in moksha. For them, there are many
> > VaikuNThas
> >  and one place apart from them called Goloka, all of
> > which
> >  are not in the material world. The different
> > VaikuNThas
> >  are said to be presided by various expansions of
> > the original
> >  God KrishNa, who is at Goloka. To adiyEn's
> > understanding, they
> >  also say inherent differences in the jIvAtmas.
> > According to
> >  them, certain jIvAtmas are inherently related to
> > Original God
> >  to be in "mAdhurya rasa" ie.the relationship as
> > that of
> >  gOpis who played the rAsa krIda with Lord. Some are
> > related
> >  as that of YasOda, some as that of Arjuna as a
> > friend etc.
> >  Thus, they hold difference in the vary nature of
> > jIvAtmas itself.
> >  According to them, mAdhurya rasa is experienced at
> > Goloka and
> >  thus forms the ultimate moksham. Attainment of
> > other vaikuNThas
> >  are of lower nature due to the non-availibility of
> > this mAdhurya
> >  rasa. Well, these gradation system in moksha has no
> > scriptural
> >  authority (accepted by other vEdAntins) and its
> > their formulation
> >  due to their excessive love for Lord KrishNa. There
> > is no mention
> >  of such gradations in principal Upanishads, Brahma
> > sUtras and
> >  Bhagavad gIta. Infact, there are many contradictory
> > statements
> >  to their theory.
> >
> >  For GVs, ParamAtma is also none other than
> > BhagavAn, but an
> >  expansion of Him, manifesting only certain
> > qualities etc. To
> >  adiyEn's understanding, they equate ParamAtma with
> > the antaryAmi
> >  form of PerumAL and also to other 4 handed forms of
> > PerumAL.
> >
> >  Surprisingly, they also accept the existence of
> > "NirguNa Brhaman"
> >  as that of Sankara. But, it is equated to the
> > effulgence coming
> >  out of the divine body of BhagavAn. The effulgence
> > spreads
> >  outside of the spiritual world and those who are
> > after nirguNa
> >  Brahman (advaitins) are said to get merged into
> > that effulgence.
> >  But, this NirguNa Brahman is none other than
> > BhagavAn for them
> >  in ultimate reality, but is only an expansion of
> > BhagavAn. This
> >  gives them a very contradictory metaphysical stand
> > since BhagavAn
> >  is savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and
> > He can't
> >  simultaneously be "nirvisEsha" (without any
> > attributes whatsoever)
> >  as "NirguNa Brahman". They also say that BhagavAn
> > and His
> >  attributes are absolutely same, which is logically
> > contradictory.
> >  They get into a fix and dispose all these by saying
> > that its
> >  "acintya" ie. un-explicable. Similar to how
> > advaitins
> >  conveniently try to escape the objections by
> > incorporating all of
> >  them into the "nature of avidya", GVs incorporate
> > the objections
> >  into "acintya" (ie."Unexplicable" is the very
> > answer, though our
> >  Bhagavad RAmanuja has clearly established as to how
> > the tattvas
> >  are clearly explainable without contradictions).
> > Bhagavad
> >  RAmAnuja's establishment of the tattvAs and esp.
> > the relationship
> >  between Brahman and chit+achit, is fully grounded
> > in Upanishads
> >  themselves (ie. SarIra-SarIri bhAva and the concept
> > of apruthak
> >  siddi ie. inseparable union is verily present in
> > Upanishads).
> >  But the acintya theory of GVs is a logical
> > deduction from the
> >  metaphysical stand they hold for various tattvas
> > and thus
> >  "yukti" (logic) scores over the pramAna for them
> > ultimately.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>  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.
>
> 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.
>
>  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.
> 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.
>
> > > 4. on why sri bhasyakarar did not include srimad
> > > bhagavatham as one of the pramanams, a) srimad
> > > bhagavatahma states that Lord Krishna to be the
> > > supreme lord and not an avatara.(in the krishna
> > > sandharbha this is established by jiva
> > goswami)while
> > > Sri VP states on the contrary.
>   SrImad BhAgavatham (SB) has nowhere contradicted
> > VEdAnta.
> >  Gaudiya Vaishnavas take the SB verse "etE
> > .....krishNAstu
> >  bhagavAn swayam" to understand as if Lord KrishNa
> > is the
> >  "original" God and four handed forms of God are
> > only His
> >   expansions. They call these four handed forms of
> > God as
> >  NArAyana.
> >
> >  Its only a misunderstanding of that verse by
> > Gaudiya
> >  Vaishnavas (GVs)
>
>  there is no misunderstanding of the GV's but rather
> on our part.
> when SB is supposed to be the Bhasya of the vedanta
> sutras how can it differ from Vedanta.
>
>  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.
>
>   though it may seem that SB talks of various subject
> matters it is said in the SB itself that it has
> nothing to do with the four purushartha(dharma artha
> kama and moksha) but only about pure devotion to Sri
> Krishna .
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> adiyen
> ramanuja dasan
>
> narasimhan ranganathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoid the lines and visit avis.com for quick and easy online 
reservations. Enjoy a compact car nationwide for only $29 a day! 
Click here for more details.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3011/2/_/716111/_/956295558/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
           - 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: Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy: "In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions"
• Previous message: Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri: "Bhagavatam"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]